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
BashCo has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
anon616 has quit [Quit: anon616]
rusty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
anon616 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dnaleor has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Belkaar has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Belkaar has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Belkaar has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Belkaar has quit [Changing host]
moa has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
airbreather_ is now known as airbreather
dnaleor has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dnaleor has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
punindented has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
moa has joined #bitcoin-wizards
moa has quit [Client Quit]
BashCo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
punindented has joined #bitcoin-wizards
punindented has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jb55 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dabura667 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dnaleor has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dgenr8 has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
dgenr8 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Fugazi has quit []
jb55 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rmwb__ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Chris_Stewart_5 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
dnaleor has quit [Quit: Leaving]
jb55 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jb55 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
dnaleor has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wxss has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
dnaleor has quit [Quit: Leaving]
harrymm has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
harrymm has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<rusty>
kanzure: is there a common name for the idea of assisted validation, where the spending wallet attaches some proof of the outputs being spent ? ISTR encountering this idea years ago with petertodd's name attached to it....
<rusty>
kanzure: yep, thanks, CSV it is. Hmm, acronym overload...
<kanzure>
well don't use acronyms
<kanzure>
that's your first problem
<rusty>
DUA. Got it!
<kanzure>
i do not like calling this "assisted validation". maybe "client-side validation" or "wallet proofs" or "wallet-provided proofs" or something.
<kanzure>
essentially the concept is to get massive scale in exchange for massive client/wallet burdens
jb55 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
legogris has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
legogris has joined #bitcoin-wizards
TheSeven has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
TheSeven has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rmwb has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
TheSeven has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
TheSeven has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rusty has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
airbreather has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
geezas has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<geezas>
Would anyone care to opine or at least entertain an idea of adding multiple PoWs? Removing a PoW (in the case of PoW change) is very disruptive, to say the least, but how about introducing an additional one? Any merit?
<geezas>
Btw, If this is a wrong sub, my bad, advise me on which other one would be more appropriate.
<geezas>
Was this ever considered at any length?
rhett has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
d9b4bef9 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<sipa>
geezas: on topic, i'd sa
<sipa>
but every scheme i know of to add PoW functions to a chain effectively need the whole network to adopt it first
<sipa>
while it does not necessarily change the validity of any block (so it could be a softfork by that definition), it does change how tondetermine which bloxk is "best" among a number of candidates
<sipa>
and that really means everyone needs to first adopt new software in order to not end up with 2 chains, i.e. a hardfork
<geezas>
I agree, this is with the assumption there's a strong concensus and planned in advance so it's a safe hard-fork
<sipa>
if those are your assumptions, how is it better than just changing PoW?
<geezas>
well removing a PoW seems a lot more disruptive, it removes existing mining infrastructure
<geezas>
each PoW would have its own difficulty adjustment in one form or another
<geezas>
maybe naively, but I imagine new PoW would go through a similar steady increase to "maturity" as the original PoW did
<geezas>
i guess in the end, if PoWs would compete freely, ultimately the one with best BTC/energy ratio would remain the only significant one
<geezas>
but... with independent difficulty adjustments, it seems PoWs might actually converge on a very similar BTC/energy ratio
<geezas>
and if there aren't too many downsides, it appears that it should help with decentralization
<geezas>
maybe not permanently, but for a worthwile amount of time - thinking maybe at least several years
<geezas>
the "dance" between fluctuations would keep the mining industry a bit more speculative, there'd be more "betting" on investing in one PoW vs the other
<geezas>
it would be harder to centralize such a market, imp
<geezas>
imp -> imo
<jb55>
guys I got one. proof of kolmogorov. the shortest program to compute a challenge string. this would inventivize compression/ai algorithm development and eventually give rise to the singularity.
jtimon has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<jb55>
need you wizards to work out the remaining details
<eck>
for my solution, i choose the programming language where the empty string is defined to be a program producing the challenge output string
<jb55>
eck: stop cheating
<geezas>
and each node would have to compile and run programs to validate? ha
rajan123 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<jb55>
was thinking people could broadcast candidates in each round and then the best one wins
<jb55>
just not sure how you would choose the challenge string
<jb55>
*best* being the smallest program that produces the output of course
rajan123 has quit [Quit: rajan123]
<jb55>
the best miners would develop AIs that are good at writing code? as long as the challenges are interesting enough.
rajan123 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<geezas>
are you expanding on the joke or serious? maybe my sarcasm radar is not that great (mainly due to Poe's law)
rajan123 has quit [Client Quit]
<jb55>
both?
<geezas>
I mean, you'd want to minimize complexity and attack surface when introducing a new PoW, as just the fact of introducing it is already adding complexity overhead
<sipa>
i still don't see what you're trying to solve
<sipa>
in ths long term, every PoW is equivalent: a conversion between electricity and hashrate
<sipa>
in the short term, availability and research costs of hardware may favor some parties over others, through access to technology and manufacturing
<sipa>
if that is a problem, giving more options isn't going to help - removing the option that hurts is
rajan123 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<geezas>
re: "favor some parties over others" right, there isn't an optimal solution with maximum decentralization, but wouldn't that still increase it (short term?) Some of those parties might be new parties. More parties in the system would be good.
<geezas>
re: "removing the option that hurts is", I agree, but if we were to phase in new ones and phase out the ones that hurt be a smoother transition?
<jb55>
would be a hairy change when cheap consumer asics does the same thing without any changes
<jb55>
if that ever happens...
<geezas>
the nature of ASICs is that it's not general purpose
str4d has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<geezas>
you will never have general purpose ASICs for PoWs - general purpose ASIC is a CPU
<geezas>
...and a GPU to a lesser extent
rajan123 has quit [Quit: rajan123]
<sipa>
geezas: it's a hardfork, it can't be smooth
rajan123 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<geezas>
I thought consensus hardforks can be smooth(er)
<sipa>
if planned years in advance, sure
<geezas>
add a hardfork, activate on 95% (or higher) acceptance
<geezas>
right, that's the context in which I'm interested in pondering and discussing this concept
<sipa>
there is nothing to measure for hardforks
rajan123 has quit [Client Quit]
<sipa>
well if you need years in advance to plan a mechanism to solve mining centralization (which is a pretty short term thing)...
<geezas>
*hopefully* a short term thing
<jb55>
sipa how long you think it will be before we can start using those smexy bech32 addresses
<sipa>
well if you give hardware manufacturers years to adapt, you aren't solving much, right?
<sipa>
jb55: bitcoin core 0.15.1 will support them; i don't know about other wallet software
<geezas>
well, if PoW had an expiration date, it could potentially reduce the incentive for big long-term investments
<sipa>
what happens when it expires?
<geezas>
so image there are let's say 3 PoWs at any given time
<sipa>
what if they all expire?
<geezas>
every once in a while a new PoW is put up to replace the oldest one
<sipa>
who decides what the next PoW is?
<geezas>
given there is a strong consensus in some way
daszorz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<geezas>
well, who decides what goes into bitcoin reference client now?
<jb55>
wouldn't miners with the most money just invest in N different types of ASICs of the pow cycled? making it harder for individuals to participate?
<sipa>
geezas: software maintainers, but they're not relevant
<sipa>
geezas: people still have to choose to run the software
rmwb has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<sipa>
which incentivizes maintainers to only implement things that have consensus already
<jb55>
sipa: hypothetical scenario where stakes get too high and btc is worth too much that competitors begin "taking out" core devs. Do you worry about this?
<jb55>
will it ever need to go full anonymous?
<sipa>
i don't know
<geezas>
I guess in a nutshell, I believe, introducing a new PoW, in certain circumstances, can introduce bursts of decentralized mining. Probably never in way that mining was in the early days - single users with PCs - but still in a way that a churns the mining players a bit.
<geezas>
that might as well be a small enough effect where it's not worth the effort
<jb55>
stay safe man buy guns
<geezas>
just a reminder, I'm in no way trying to push this - just interested in the thought experiment
<geezas>
sipa, thanks for your time and input on this
<sipa>
there are so many conflicting goals in this questiin
rajan123 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<sipa>
for example, long termninvestments in hardware are clearly a centralizing factor
spectra| has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<sipa>
but they also help align mining incentives - a system that needs to remain valuable for months or years for miners to break even requires said miner to not attack the system for short term gain
rajan123 has quit [Client Quit]
<jb55>
afaik the only proposed miner takover is a long sustained *ideological* attack which seems pretttty unlikely unless they like burning money
<jb55>
and you would need a decent chunk of them doing this as well...
<jb55>
if they somehow get really good at propaganda they could convince the masses as well
<jb55>
keeps me up at night
rajan123 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<jb55>
proaganda seems like the most likely attack route going forward
rajan123 has quit [Client Quit]
BashCo has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<geezas>
jb55, yes propaganda is likely the tool of choice going forward. That's because the value is ultimately controlled by the users with their buying and selling. Given two competing options are stable and functional and liquid in the short-term, propaganda is a good tool to "herd" the users. Lets hope enough users value the long-term viability, ideals, and aspirations that most of us here value.
<geezas>
In the end, value might not even be the ultimate indicator, at least in the short-term. If a lower value coin can still retain a vibrant and functional economy and market, the one with sound fundamentals should get its chance to prove its superiority in less certain times.
rajan123 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<geezas>
As long as such an option remains, it doesn't have to be the one that's most frequently used.
<geezas>
anyway, I'm going off tangent so I'll stop
rajan123 has quit [Client Quit]
BashCo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<spectra|>
having trouble comparing two uint256 types with equality operators
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has quit [Client Quit]
rajan123 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
rajan123 has quit [Quit: rajan123]
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rajan123 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c0rw1n_ has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
rajan123 has quit [Quit: rajan123]
rajan123 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rajan123 has quit [Client Quit]
rajan123 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rajan123 has quit [Quit: rajan123]
rajan123 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rajan123 has quit [Client Quit]
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jb55 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
rajan123 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
arubi has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
rajan123 has quit [Quit: rajan123]
arubi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
vicenteH` has joined #bitcoin-wizards
marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-wizards
vicenteH has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
vicenteH` is now known as vicenteH
jonasschnelli has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
jonasschnelli has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rmwb has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
daszorz has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
daszorz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
JackH has joined #bitcoin-wizards
execute has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
rajan123 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rajan123 has quit [Client Quit]
rusty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
airbreather has joined #bitcoin-wizards
marcoagner has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
d9b4bef9 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rmwb has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-wizards
daszorz has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
dabura667_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dabura667 has quit [Read error: No route to host]
daszorz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dabura667_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rmwb has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
jtimon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
daszorz2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wxss has joined #bitcoin-wizards
daszorz has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
dnaleor has joined #bitcoin-wizards
marcoagner has quit [Quit: WeeChat 1.0.1]
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
str4d has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
dnaleor has quit [Quit: Leaving]
str4d has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rmwb has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
HTTP_____GK1wmSU has joined #bitcoin-wizards
HTTP_____GK1wmSU has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
rusty has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
rhett has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
AaronvanW has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
str4d has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<JackH>
is anyone still working on MAST?
rmwb has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
<kanzure>
yes
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Iriez has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
dnaleor has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dnaleor has quit [Client Quit]
Iriez has joined #bitcoin-wizards
alferz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Chris_Stewart_5 has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
rmwb has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
meshcollider has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
ariard has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rmwb has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
daszorz2 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
deusexbeer has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
alferz has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
rmwb has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
Chris_Stewart_5 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
thrmo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
airbreather has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
Yogh has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
Yogh has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c0rw1n_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dnaleor has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guyver2 has quit [Quit: Going offline, see ya! (www.adiirc.com)]
pigeons has quit [Quit: Changing server]
Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
rmwb has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
thrmo has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dnaleor has quit [Quit: Leaving]
StopAndDecrypt__ is now known as StopAndDecrypt
jephalien has quit [Quit: brb rebooting]
jb55 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rmwb has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
vicenteH has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
vicenteH has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dnaleor has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rmwb has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
daszorz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dnaleor has quit [Quit: Leaving]
ariard has quit [Quit: Leaving]
rmwb has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
daszorz has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
dnaleor has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dnaleor has quit [Client Quit]
rmwb has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
str4d has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dnaleor has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mkarrer has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mkarrer has quit []
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dnaleor has quit [Quit: Leaving]
dnaleor has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rhett has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rhett has quit [Client Quit]
Giszmo has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
rmwb has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
meshcollider has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rmwb has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
anon616 has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
anon616 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Chris_Stewart_5 has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
airbreather has joined #bitcoin-wizards
airbreather_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
airbreather has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
airbreather has joined #bitcoin-wizards
str4d_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
airbreather_ has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
str4d has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
thrmo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AaronvanW has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
chjj has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rmwb has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
rmwb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
spinza has quit [Quit: Coyote finally caught up with me...]
spinza has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Giszmo has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<esotericnonsense>
jb55: i can't actually think of a sane way to have multiple PoW functions that don't require them all to 'sign' the same blocks
<esotericnonsense>
(if they all sign the same blocks it seems irrelevant to me because whoever dominates the 'highest difficulty' (as measured in terms of electricity consumption, or shorter term, rarity of hardware that can efficiently mine that PoW) effectively writes history anyway
<esotericnonsense>
if you have alternating work functions, e.g. block (n%2 == 0) on PoW0, block (n%2 == 1) on PoW1, i'd think you would have some extremely odd incentives regarding selfish mining
<esotericnonsense>
if you let any of the permitted work functions be used for the solution of all blocks, then difficulty adjustments, re-orgs, seem to be intractable (which chain has more chainwork? what happens to the difficulty of PoW0 if a whole difficulty period is made up of PoW1?)
<esotericnonsense>
I mean, chainwork isn't only useful for re-orgs, it's effectively what allows the system to function at all without uninterruptible network access
<esotericnonsense>
i'd be interested in research on the subject if anyone has links :)
adamperlow has joined #bitcoin-wizards
pro has joined #bitcoin-wizards
adamperlow is now known as captainhindsight
pro has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<captainhindsight>
Hi
<captainhindsight>
It is quite the coincidence that I am logging on for the first time and see that multiple hash funcitons are being discussed
<kanzure>
captainhindsight is usually in #linuxcnc
str4d_ has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
geezas has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<esotericnonsense>
it doesn't seem to address the issue of chainwork as far as I can tell
<esotericnonsense>
(you would have to use the 'hash difficulties' which are derived empirically from observations of the seen blocks)
<esotericnonsense>
contrast with a single hash function in which you _know_ that a block mined at target n/10 required on average 10 times more work than a block mined at target n