let me continue my conversation: as the development of this transactions would be indiscated as a ByteArray of On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Damian Gomez wrote: > > Well zombie txns aside, I expect this to be resolved w/ a client side > implementation using a Merkle-Winternitz OTS in order to prevent the loss > of fee structure theougth the implementation of a this security hash that > eill alloow for a one-wya transaction to conitnue, according to the TESLA > protocol. > > We can then tally what is needed to compute tteh number of bit desginated > for teh completion og the client-side signature if discussin the > construcitons of a a DH key (instead of the BIP X509 protocol) > > > > > > On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:08 PM, < > bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > >> Send Bitcoin-development mailing list submissions to >> bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> bitcoin-development-owner@lists.sourceforge.net >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Bitcoin-development digest..." >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: Block Size Increase (Mark Friedenbach) >> 2. Softfork signaling improvements (Douglas Roark) >> 3. Re: Block Size Increase (Mark Friedenbach) >> 4. Re: Block Size Increase (Raystonn) (Damian Gomez) >> 5. Re: Block Size Increase (Raystonn) >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Mark Friedenbach >> To: Raystonn >> Cc: Bitcoin Development >> Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 13:55:30 -0700 >> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase >> The problems with that are larger than time being unreliable. It is no >> longer reorg-safe as transactions can expire in the course of a reorg and >> any transaction built on the now expired transaction is invalidated. >> >> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Raystonn wrote: >> >>> Replace by fee is what I was referencing. End-users interpret the old >>> transaction as expired. Hence the nomenclature. An alternative is a new >>> feature that operates in the reverse of time lock, expiring a transaction >>> after a specific time. But time is a bit unreliable in the blockchain >>> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Douglas Roark >> To: Bitcoin Dev >> Cc: >> Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 15:27:26 -0400 >> Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Softfork signaling improvements >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA512 >> >> Hello. I've seen Greg make a couple of posts online >> (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1033396.msg11155302#msg11155302 >> is one such example) where he has mentioned that Pieter has a new >> proposal for allowing multiple softforks to be deployed at the same >> time. As discussed in the thread I linked, the idea seems simple >> enough. Still, I'm curious if the actual proposal has been posted >> anywhere. I spent a few minutes searching the usual suspects (this >> mailing list, Reddit, Bitcointalk, IRC logs, BIPs) and can't find >> anything. >> >> Thanks. >> >> - --- >> Douglas Roark >> Senior Developer >> Armory Technologies, Inc. >> doug@bitcoinarmory.com >> PGP key ID: 92ADC0D7 >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) >> Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org >> >> iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVTQ4eAAoJEGybVGGSrcDX8eMQAOQiDA7an+qZBqDfVIwEzY2C >> SxOVxswwxAyTtZNM/Nm+8MTq77hF8+3j/C3bUbDW6wCu4QxBYA/uiCGTf44dj6WX >> 7aiXg1o9C4LfPcuUngcMI0H5ixOUxnbqUdmpNdoIvy4did2dVs9fAmOPEoSVUm72 >> 6dMLGrtlPN0jcLX6pJd12Dy3laKxd0AP72wi6SivH6i8v8rLb940EuBS3hIkuZG0 >> vnR5MXMIEd0rkWesr8hn6oTs/k8t4zgts7cgIrA7rU3wJq0qaHBa8uASUxwHKDjD >> KmDwaigvOGN6XqitqokCUlqjoxvwpimCjb3Uv5Pkxn8+dwue9F/IggRXUSuifJRn >> UEZT2F8fwhiluldz3sRaNtLOpCoKfPC+YYv7kvGySgqagtNJFHoFhbeQM0S3yjRn >> Ceh1xK9sOjrxw/my0jwpjJkqlhvQtVG15OsNWDzZ+eWa56kghnSgLkFO+T4G6IxB >> EUOcAYjJkLbg5ssjgyhvDOvGqft+2e4MNlB01e1ZQr4whQH4TdRkd66A4WDNB+0g >> LBqVhAc2C8L3g046mhZmC33SuOSxxm8shlxZvYLHU2HrnUFg9NkkXi1Ub7agMSck >> TTkLbMx17AvOXkKH0v1L20kWoWAp9LfRGdD+qnY8svJkaUuVtgDurpcwEk40WwEZ >> caYBw+8bdLpKZwqbA1DL >> =ayhE >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Mark Friedenbach >> To: "Raystonn ." >> Cc: Bitcoin Development >> Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 13:40:50 -0700 >> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase >> Transactions don't expire. But if the wallet is online, it can >> periodically choose to release an already created transaction with a higher >> fee. This requires replace-by-fee to be sufficiently deployed, however. >> >> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Raystonn . wrote: >> >>> I have a proposal for wallets such as yours. How about creating all >>> transactions with an expiration time starting with a low fee, then >>> replacing with new transactions that have a higher fee as time passes. >>> Users can pick the fee curve they desire based on the transaction priority >>> they want to advertise to the network. Users set the priority in the >>> wallet, and the wallet software translates it to a specific fee curve used >>> in the series of expiring transactions. In this manner, transactions are >>> never left hanging for days, and probably not even for hours. >>> >>> -Raystonn >>> On 8 May 2015 1:17 pm, Aaron Voisine wrote: >>> >>> As the author of a popular SPV wallet, I wanted to weigh in, in support >>> of the Gavin's 20Mb block proposal. >>> >>> The best argument I've heard against raising the limit is that we need >>> fee pressure. I agree that fee pressure is the right way to economize on >>> scarce resources. Placing hard limits on block size however is an >>> incredibly disruptive way to go about this, and will severely negatively >>> impact users' experience. >>> >>> When users pay too low a fee, they should: >>> >>> 1) See immediate failure as they do now with fees that fail to propagate. >>> >>> 2) If the fee lower than it should be but not terminal, they should see >>> degraded performance, long delays in confirmation, but eventual success. >>> This will encourage them to pay higher fees in future. >>> >>> The worst of all worlds would be to have transactions propagate, hang in >>> limbo for days, and then fail. This is the most important scenario to >>> avoid. Increasing the 1Mb block size limit I think is the simplest way to >>> avoid this least desirable scenario for the immediate future. >>> >>> We can play around with improved transaction selection for blocks and >>> encourage miners to adopt it to discourage low fees and create fee >>> pressure. These could involve hybrid priority/fee selection so low fee >>> transactions see degraded performance instead of failure. This would be the >>> conservative low risk approach. >>> >>> Aaron Voisine >>> co-founder and CEO >>> breadwallet.com >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud >>> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications >>> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights >>> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. >>> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bitcoin-development mailing list >>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >>> >>> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Damian Gomez >> To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> Cc: >> Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 14:04:10 -0700 >> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase (Raystonn) >> Hello, >> >> I was reading some of the thread but can't say I read the entire thing. >> >> I think that it is realistic to cinsider a nlock sixe of 20MB for any >> block txn to occur. THis is an enormous amount of data (relatively for a >> netwkrk) in which the avergage rate of 10tps over 10 miniutes would allow >> for fewasible transformation of data at this curent point in time. >> >> Though I do not see what extra hash information would be stored in the >> overall ecosystem as we begin to describe what the scripts that are >> atacrhed tp the blockchain would carry, >> >> I'd therefore think that for the remainder of this year that it is >> possible to have a block chain within 200 - 300 bytes that is more >> charatereistic of some feasible attempts at attaching nuanced data in order >> to keep propliifc the blockchain but have these identifiers be integral >> OPSIg of the the entiore block. THe reasoning behind this has to do with >> encryption standards that can be added toe a chain such as th DH algoritnm >> keys that would allow for a higher integrity level withinin the system as >> it is. Cutrent;y tyh prootocl oomnly controls for the amount of >> transactions through if TxnOut script and the publin key coming form teh >> lcoation of the proof-of-work. Form this then I think that a rate of higher >> than then current standard of 92bytes allows for GPUS ie CUDA to perfirm >> its standard operations of 1216 flops in rde rto mechanize a new >> personal identity within the chain that also attaches an encrypted instance >> of a further categorical variable that we can prsribved to it. >> >> I think with the current BIP7 prootclol for transactions there is an area >> of vulnerability for man-in-the-middle attacks upon request of bitcin to >> any merchant as is. It would contraidct the security of the bitcoin if it >> was intereceptefd iand not allowed to reach tthe payment network or if the >> hash was reveresed in orfr to change the value it had. Therefore the >> current best fit block size today is between 200 - 300 bytws (depending on >> how exciteed we get) >> >> >> >> Thanks for letting me join the conversation >> I welcomes any vhalleneged and will reply with more research as i figure >> out what problems are revealed in my current formation of thoughts (sorry >> for the errors but i am just trying to move forward ---> THE DELRERT KEY >> LITERALLY PREVENTS IT ) >> >> >> _Damian >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Raystonn >> To: Mark Friedenbach >> Cc: Bitcoin Development >> Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 14:01:28 -0700 >> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase >> >> Replace by fee is the better approach. It will ultimately replace zombie >> transactions (due to insufficient fee) with potentially much higher fees as >> the feature takes hold in wallets throughout the network, and fee >> competition increases. However, this does not fix the problem of low tps. >> In fact, as blocks fill it could make the problem worse. This feature >> means more transactions after all. So I would expect huge fee spikes, or a >> return to zombie transactions if fee caps are implemented by wallets. >> >> -Raystonn >> On 8 May 2015 1:55 pm, Mark Friedenbach wrote: >> >> The problems with that are larger than time being unreliable. It is no >> longer reorg-safe as transactions can expire in the course of a reorg and >> any transaction built on the now expired transaction is invalidated. >> >> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Raystonn wrote: >> >> Replace by fee is what I was referencing. End-users interpret the old >> transaction as expired. Hence the nomenclature. An alternative is a new >> feature that operates in the reverse of time lock, expiring a transaction >> after a specific time. But time is a bit unreliable in the blockchain >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud >> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications >> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights >> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. >> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> >> >