sipa changed the topic of #bitcoin-wizards to: This channel is for discussing theoretical ideas with regard to cryptocurrencies, not about short-term Bitcoin development | http://bitcoin.ninja/ | This channel is logged. | For logs and more information, visit http://bitcoin.ninja
Ylbam has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
wizkidO57 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wizkidO57 has quit [Changing host]
wizkidO57 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wizkidO57 is now known as wizkid057
laurentmt has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
DougieBot5000 has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Yoghur114 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gib has quit [Quit: Leaving]
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
zooko has joined #bitcoin-wizards
adlai1 is now known as adlai
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
voxelot has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
GAit has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
roconnor has joined #bitcoin-wizards
HostFat has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jgarzik has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<dgenr8>
kanzure: spv has yet to be done properly. what do you think is the most glaring vulnerability? (not considering privacy here)
<kanzure>
i think fraud proofs are fairly vulnerable because of the lack of incentive for a miner to hand you one
<midnightmagic>
dgenr8: lack of fraud proofs, lack of fraud proof handling, lack of proper fraud proof handling, likely difficulty of handling fraud proofs.
<kanzure>
i suppose another vulnerability is that good fraud proofs don't even exist at the moment (even though bitcoin.pdf specifies the necessity of this)
<dgenr8>
fraud proofs are a bit premature imho since current spv clients don't even ask for input proofs (merkle branches). petertodd's recent presentation is an example of that
<kanzure>
i think i can reasonably defend something like "use bitcoin by access through a third-party gateway" more than i could defend "use spv".... at least in the centralized third-party API model, you have centralized security risk and vulnerability which you can attempt to solve using human means. and this is less true for "spv"..... if you are going to be insecure and rely on human trust, you might as well use human trusted institutions ...
<kanzure>
... which people mostly already have experience with.
Burrito has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<dgenr8>
i think spv is fixable. for one thing, spv clients should run over tor so information actually comes from the p2p network
bit2017 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<maaku>
dgenr8: you mean run over tor so exit nodes have full network control over what you see?
Tiraspol has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Tiraspol has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Tiraspol has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<smooth>
im alsoi a little stumped what tor has to do with p2p
<dgenr8>
maaku: that's much better than my network provider having full control over everything
<dgenr8>
smooth: the p2p network is on the other side of my network provider
<kanzure>
a well-engineered bitcoin node will continue to work even if your connection becomes man-in-the-middled
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<smooth>
that is certainly impossible
<smooth>
dgenr8: ok i get what you meant
<kanzure>
whole point of crypto and security is to outsmart the man-in-the-middle attacker.
<smooth>
you can outsmart a mitm on some of your connections, but not all of them
<dgenr8>
one honest connection is all you need
<kanzure>
it depends on what you mean--- if you mean "your connection was always intercepted" then yes. but if you mean "hey you once had a good channel but now you don't" then my answer is no; your client can remember previous network state and details.
<smooth>
right but zero will not work
Tiraspol has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<smooth>
yes but the mitm can still always give you a recent chain fork
<kanzure>
recent chain forks are expected though.
<kanzure>
that's how this works...
Tiraspol has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<smooth>
of arbitrary length
<smooth>
because all other blocks will be censored
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
Giszmo has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
TheSeven has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
TheSeven has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet421 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
frankenmint has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
dnaleor_ has quit [Quit: Leaving]
wallet421 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
dnaleor has quit [Quit: Leaving]
dnaleor has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
dEBRUYNE has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<midnightmagic>
combination tor/ip4/ip6 gateway nodes operate as well; tor exit nodes are not the only outlet for tor-connected nodes. nor are tor-only nodes useless.
laurentmt has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
Transisto2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Nightwolf has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
voxelot has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Nightwolf has joined #bitcoin-wizards
e0 has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
e0 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
digitalmagus has joined #bitcoin-wizards
johnwhitton has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
HostFat_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
HostFat has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
everyBloc has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Alopex has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
everyBloc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Alopex has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Jeremy_Rand_2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
HostFat_ has quit [Quit: Leaving]
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
zooko has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
priidu has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
everyBloc has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
c-cex-yuriy has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
jaekwon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
jarret has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
Giszmo has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
jaekwon has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
sausage_factory has joined #bitcoin-wizards
blackwraith has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
blackwraith has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
zooko has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sausage_factory has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
AusteritySucks has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
davec has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
davec has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Eris72 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
zooko has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
AusteritySucks has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
atgreen has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Eris72 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MoALTz has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
MoALTz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
belcher has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
instagibbs_ is now known as instagibbs
ManfredMacx has quit [Quit: Leaving]
slackircbridge has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<Anduck>
could there be some kind of signaling system for blocks which rely on the fact nearly all the peers have say 95% of the included transactions in their mempool?
<Anduck>
and nodes could deny these blocks if they don't have X% of transactions already in their mempool
<Anduck>
or the blocks could signal that they don't want to be denied, and they would have the limit. signaling ^ would have some other limit for blocksize?
<Taek>
what is the goal?
<Taek>
(actually, I don't have time to stick around, hopefully someone else can help you)
belcher has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Taek>
but remember that consensus needs to be uniform across all spacetime
<Anduck>
goal would be to increase TPS
laurentmt has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
<Taek>
blocks need to be accepted the same everywhere, regardless of mempools
CrazyTruthYakDDS has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Anduck>
yeah.. good point
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
slackircbridge has joined #bitcoin-wizards
slackircbridge has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
slackircbridge has joined #bitcoin-wizards
slackircbridge has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has quit [Client Quit]
slackircbridge has joined #bitcoin-wizards
teslax has joined #bitcoin-wizards
PaulCape_ has quit [Quit: .]
jarret has joined #bitcoin-wizards
PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Eris72 has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
jeamy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jaekwon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bildramer has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
belcher has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
belcher has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Eris72 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Eliel>
Anduck: there would be a need for another consensus algorithm to synchronize the mempools if that were to work. However, that could perhaps be done with an algorithm that's not quite as reliable as the blockchain is.
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
<Anduck>
right
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has quit [Client Quit]
shesek has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
belcher has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
nivah has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c-cex-yuriy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bit2017 has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
jarret has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
HostFat has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
gielbier has quit [Quit: Leaving]
digitalmagus8 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
digitalmagus has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
justanotheruser has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Eris72 has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
xuxu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
belcher has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<xuxu>
is it possible that a sidechain can be a private blockchain? if so, is the merged mining attack on sidechains with private blockchains possible?
<fluffypony>
if a sidechain falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, has it really fallen?
<fluffypony>
ie. if you conscript a couple of miners to effectively peg a hash of that private chain's block to Bitcoin every day or two, or however often, those miners are probably getting paid out-of-band
<fluffypony>
I doubt they're doing it for unspendable fees