andytoshi changed the topic of #bitcoin-wizards to: This channel is for discussing theoretical ideas with regard to cryptocurrencies, not about short-term Bitcoin development | This channel is logged. | For logs and more information, visit https://bitcoin.ninja
Kiminuo has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
Kiminuo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
gribble has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
queip has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
queip has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gribble has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AaronvanW has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
CryptoDavid has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
bitdex has joined #bitcoin-wizards
_whitelogger has joined #bitcoin-wizards
_whitelogger has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
belcher_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
TheoStorm has quit [Quit: Leaving]
belcher has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
jadi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jadi has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
jnsu has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jnsu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jnsu has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
jnsu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<dr_orlovsky>
sipa: am I right that with BIP-340 while sing-to-contract is possible it is not secure due to the deterministic nature of sign-to-contract nonce, which will lead to a private key leakage?
<dr_orlovsky>
or, it will be fine to use it IF we will have a single-use private keys? Is correlation attack possible for unhardeningly-derived private keys?
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<sipa>
dr_orlovsky: i don't think there is a problem; it's a different key
<dr_orlovsky>
ok, but how do you think, is it required at all (as a support for "good practices"?)
<dr_orlovsky>
* sorry wrong channel :)
<sipa>
not reusing keys for multiple purposes is good practice in any case
<sipa>
beyond that, i don't think there is anything special about sign-to-contract
<dr_orlovsky>
thank you for the clarification
<sipa>
this is similar to BIP32, btw
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
rh0nj has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
rh0nj has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jrayhawk_ is now known as jrayhawk
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
flag has quit [Quit: leaving]
flag has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
pinheadm_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
pinheadmz has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
untruehooha has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jnsu has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jadi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rh0nj has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
rh0nj has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rh0nj has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
rh0nj has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jnsu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jnsu has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
ddustin has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ddustin has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
ghost43_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jnsu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
jnsu has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
untruehooha has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
ddustin has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ddustin has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
ddustin has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ddustin has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
jnsu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jb55 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jb55 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jnsu has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
thrig has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jnsu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laptop has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jnsu has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
jnsu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jnsu has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
gmazza has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AaronvanW has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jnsu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jnsu has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
tromp has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
willcl_ark has quit [Quit: Quit]
willcl_ark has joined #bitcoin-wizards
son0p has joined #bitcoin-wizards
shesek has joined #bitcoin-wizards
queip has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
tromp has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Kimi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Kiminuo has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Kimi has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jnsu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
jnsu has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
TheoStorm has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jnsu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jnsu has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
pinheadm_ has quit [Quit: pinheadm_]
pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gleb has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
son0p has quit [Quit: Lost terminal]
jnsu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gleb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jnsu has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
matael1 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jnsu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gleb has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
jnsu has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
bitdex has quit [Quit: = ""]
gleb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
TheoStorm has quit [Quit: Leaving]
son0p has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jnsu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jnsu has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
queip has joined #bitcoin-wizards
afilini has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gribble has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
gribble has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jnsu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jnsu has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
belcher_ is now known as belcher
jnsu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<proofofkeags>
There's this tendency to believe that the problem is 120 years away but the reality seems that the rate will be "practically zero" very soon even if it isn't "actually zero" for another 120years
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<proofofkeags>
On a positive note we see fees making up approximately 15% of the total reward today, which is far from negligible. But I was wondering what the brightest minds in the space thought about this particular issue.
proofofkeags_ has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<belcher>
iv been tracking fees as a % of miner revenue (averaged over many time periods including 2016 blocks) and they've been hovering at about 10% for months and months
<sipa>
i have honestly no clue what will happen
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<belcher>
its very interesting because though the fees themselves have been volatile, they drop at the weekends and rise on monday morning, but if you average over 2 weeks it seems pretty stable, at least since ~july 2020 when i started looking
<belcher>
its often said that "fees need to rise" which im not sure about, its also possible that the difficulty drops, right?
<sipa>
why oh why did i parse "2016 blocks" as "blocks from the year 2016"?
<proofofkeags>
if difficulty drops the question becomes what liability to the network at large does the idle mining hardware pose?
<proofofkeags>
and does the presense of double sha256 altcoins mitigate this?
<proofofkeags>
there doesn't seem to be any "right" amount of hashpower, but I do often wonder what happens if hashpower declines 51% off of ATH
<sipa>
i expect in a long-term steady state that exchange rate as well as common feerates will be much less volatile than now
<sipa>
and in such a setting there wouldn't be much reason why miners are operational but turned off due to economics
<proofofkeags>
are you suggesting by "operational" that the materials are effectively recycled?
<sipa>
no, i mean: in a steady state with little variation in income, all current-generation hardware that exists will always be on
<sipa>
you wouldn't turn it off because the next block is temporarily not profitable enough to mine for
<sipa>
i thought that was the concern you're referring to
<proofofkeags>
no
<proofofkeags>
I'm referring to the declining subsidy
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<proofofkeags>
that if certain miners can no longer compete with smaller margins, that the hardware goes offline "permanently"
<proofofkeags>
where it can be repurchased for strategic reorgs by malicious actors
<sipa>
hmm, good question
<sipa>
advances in hardware should increase power efficiency, which can compensate at least somewhat the reduction in subsidy
<sipa>
(plus, if subsidy isn't taken over by other mining income - whether that's tx fees or something else - we'll have a problem regardless)
<proofofkeags>
how much do we have left from thermodynamic first principles?
<proofofkeags>
I was under the impression that the tech was getting more efficient at a palpably declining rate
<proofofkeags>
but I also am not a hardware guy
<sipa>
ASICs had to catch up with the state of the art in silicon tech, which i believe they pretty much have by now
<sipa>
but silicon tech is still improving, just at a much slower rate than ASICs have had the economic incentive to catch up
<proofofkeags>
ha, maybe? I'm not sure exactly what I'm referring to, I just know that a lot of the challenges faced in modern silicon design is around defeating fundamental physics properties moreso than actually getting the things built
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<proofofkeags>
the claim that tech improving can cancel out the effect of declining subsidy in such a way that it has a roughly cancelling property to guard against idle hardware would imply that we'd have to double hashpower efficiency every 4 years
<darosior>
proofofkeags: block reward != block subsidy. Subsdidy being cut by half does not mean block reward is
<proofofkeags>
darosior: fair point, I suppose fees are unlikely to ever *decline*, so at 10% fee makeup (per belcher's analysis), it would only be a .45^-1 decline in 2024, with subsequent halvings having less and less pronounced effects
<proofofkeags>
sorry, just a 45% decline, and the inverse would be needed for hardware efficiency in order to compensate
<belcher>
this current fee rise in the last few months is probably due to the bull market, in a bear market fees would go down too most likely
<darosior>
I think the concern is also (probably mainly?) about the regularity of the fee backlog rather than its actual size
<darosior>
proofofkeags: if you dig a fair bit you can find interesting old Bitcointalk / ML post on this matter
tromp has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<darosior>
Since that didn't evolve much in the past years i believe the discussions are still relevant
<proofofkeags>
I can look, but do you have any keywords or tips to aid the search?