mircea_popescu: kakobrekla> arguably i have more actual experience with sending txes than alf. << well, that was a discussion of mempools i thought, so i'm not sure this reduction is relevant.

mircea_popescu: more generally, you can't bring arguments as to what the standard is on the basis of "look what this implementation does". the illustrative case of this being the four men in a dark room with an elephant.

mircea_popescu: that's actually a good thing to document punkman

mircea_popescu: a lot of fingerprinting you can do by just listening. it's a large topic, this.

mircea_popescu: well, you have a large pile of stuff to explain away then. i'd be curious to read the alt theory kakobrekla

mircea_popescu: kakobrekla "that is not a bridge" "please build me a bridge over here so i can see this" "orly"

mircea_popescu: the advantage being, of course, that i have a whole lot of canaries in all sorts of apparently unexpected places. the drawbacks... heh, let's not talk about that, i'll just get angry.

mircea_popescu: from experience, the stuff the chinese miners run would, at least most of the time. historically i thought this is just random variance between divergent implementations, but now i think it's a single unit behaviour modulated somehow. also, this is essentially what "Replace by fee" is all about, iirc.

mircea_popescu: punkman you mean which implementations would accept a tx with a fee ? seeing how they wouldn't see the other one ? or what ?

mircea_popescu: by and large, very broadly speaking, and insasmuch as a "bitcoin protocol" even exists at all - it says that 0 fee txn aren't relayed or included. now, how this is implemented in practice... w/e.

mircea_popescu: kakobrekla or so we thought. but it turns out that no, there's exactly one, covered in a cloud of buzzing shit.

mircea_popescu: PeterL this is miserable "writing down". what are you, a consumer ? HOW do you doublespend.

mircea_popescu: write down what a party would need in order to do this.

mircea_popescu: because it's part of a set of mutually incompatible txn, and some of the others have better fees, for instance. if you're am iner, you want the higher fee.

mircea_popescu: it's certainly not a behaviour supported or even possible by any codebase so far published, if you think code=protocol instead.

mircea_popescu: it is breaking the protocol inasmuch as a protocol exists.

mircea_popescu: for a week or so, in preference of higher fee replacements ? sure. why ?

mircea_popescu: i didn'taskl anything of anyone. i listen to a large cross-section of the bitcoin relay network.

mircea_popescu: that happens to be, involuntarily i guess, and impredictably for the attackingside, i guess, a passive timing of their capabilities.

mircea_popescu: PeterL the operative part there is, txn was "broadcast" and then "included in a block" within 20-odd minutes.

mircea_popescu: and, ironically, the substantial proof that there was nothing wrong with any of them PER SE, was that a tx that, as per the protocol, should not even have been relayable made it into a fucking block

mircea_popescu: i am saying that i spent OVER A WEEK making transactions from those inputs.

mircea_popescu: but it already did expose such a flaw.

mircea_popescu: lol what a narrow outlook!

mircea_popescu: it's one of those "you think you're buying a fine piece of american engineering, but otherwise it's made in china" things.

mircea_popescu: yes we have! it takes it over a week to NOT get into a block :)

mircea_popescu: you're a college man, right ? tokenize the events, assets probabilities per token, calculate the overal chance of this happening.

mircea_popescu: anyway, http://qntra.net/2016/03/a-miner-problem/#comment-47619 ftr. last para.

mircea_popescu: "yeah, except they'll try it a little sooner or later, and then a little more. and the public is mostly made up of the same public that thought Britney Spears is a singer."

mircea_popescu: ben_vulpes> BingoBoingo: what does all of this mean << replace byt fee, sorta a poor man's version of your original "run a pool!"

mircea_popescu: a problem which to my eye looms a lot larger than whatever, "the last time english speaker wrote usable code was before they had electric typewriters"

mircea_popescu: and now we got a problem.

mircea_popescu: pretty much the only way to handle centralization in mining as it is designed is through periodically picking up the fattest pig and throwing it through a glass pane.

mircea_popescu: ben_vulpes understand, this isn't a field that takes well to distribution.

mircea_popescu: bitcoin got a problem, and it ain't no stinkin' "scalability". au contraire.

mircea_popescu: it's certainly a step in the right direction

mircea_popescu: BingoBoingo im writing a qntra piece re the thing, gimme an hour.

mircea_popescu: typical behaviour of spider unaware that what it's trying to catch is a wasp. that eats spiders.

mircea_popescu: or why a) ? possibily because getting cocky about it.

mircea_popescu: why what ? why b) ? because it's way the fuck safer for them if any would-be competing cartel starts with a half hour disadvantage.

mircea_popescu: nah, usg doesn't figure into this as much as a prince albert.

mircea_popescu: kakobrekla not that it'd actually do anything, just adds a gauge.

mircea_popescu: b) the same majority of miners is running a withdheld block scheme, where they keep about a half hour time differential between the ACTUAL head of the bitcoin chain and what they published.

mircea_popescu: a) a majority of miners (ie, pool operators) on the bitcoin network conspire together to selectively deny valid transactions

mircea_popescu: about half an hour AFTER that inclusion, transaction A1 was REBROADCAST, and within 20 minutes of its rebroadcasting, in spite of no fee, low miner priority etc, was included in a block.

mircea_popescu: about three hours ago, tx B, with the same outputs as An, but with different inputs was broadcast. this tx was visible in the mempool throujghout the network as normal, and was included in a block in half an hour.