155000+ entries in 0.05s
mircea_popescu: you think i'd rather have 18 btc than know all this ? i wouldn't.
mircea_popescu: i distinctly recal trb nearly sunk in the other incident, while mpb provided the magic constants. why was that ?
mircea_popescu: the reward's halving, they regard their capital investment as ~worthless, and we have crossed bitcoin event horizon.
mircea_popescu: other than the obvious "they're getting sloppy" there is, of course, the alternative explanation that the current crop of miners roughly speaking stopped giving a shit.
mircea_popescu: one of the many protocol items that turned to be promises was - i shouldn't NEED any defense.
mircea_popescu: if only. protocols would be so much easier to both design and implement, if this were true.
mircea_popescu: which aren't, at the present time, trb-tethered. it's a goal, but into the future.
mircea_popescu: kakobrekla> one thing that goes through my mind is that trb/mps << this is true, but let me clarify that An set of txn were broadcast through a set of > 1k distinct peers. most of which i don't regard as peers in any sense, but nevertheless they did get to hear about them from my own nodes.
mircea_popescu: these "most nodes" don't even fucking figure in the node count.
mircea_popescu: which at the time i did buy as a sufficient explanation.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform the first set was ~arguably~ due to the malleator magically failing on select txn
mircea_popescu: i suppose you know, gut feeling. can go either way. which is why i said, doesn't have to accept anything.
mircea_popescu: well, incredibly enough, nobody has actually calculated the fucking odds, to support this view.
mircea_popescu: nothing is randomly impossible. i have no argument there.
mircea_popescu: the problem is that "weird shit" just coallesced into everyone's worst nightmare.
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: what, you think asciilifeform accepted it as stated because he's afraid of me or something ?
mircea_popescu: kakobrekla but it's not about me, per se, it's about the thing, such as it is.
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: things are what they are, you make of them what you will.
mircea_popescu: looky, not like you have to accept or not accept anything.
mircea_popescu: kakobrekla "that is not a bridge" "please build me a bridge over here so i can see this" "orly"
mircea_popescu: kakobrekla not even. prb is more or less the random noise.
mircea_popescu: punkman the notion that prb is relevant to this discussion is shocking/ridiculous, depending on your mood.
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: you have to understand that the direct correlate of "bitcoin protocol is nowhere" is that i'm stuck sitting here wasting tons of resources and various people's time doing an endless array of stupid or plain weird shit to see what happens to try and understand what's what.
☟︎ 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: PeterL ask vessenes and the merry friends/captains of industry/power rangers/etc
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: more importantly, "the protocol is X" "no because implementation y" "implementation Y is noncompliant" "no" "because ?" "uhhh"
mircea_popescu: punkman iirc no, but the plan was to get the pool sorted by per/kb tx fee
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform looky, this isn't how this sort of discussion works, by giving counterexample.
mircea_popescu: PeterL this is not what was said! didja read the qntra piece ?
mircea_popescu: the miners are running their own shit, and it's centralized.
mircea_popescu: kakobrekla and guess what - trb gets blackholed now and again. prb never mattered.
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: but yes, because "the protocol" is not even written down, endless arguments of this nature can be had. by and large...
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: asciilifeform was it sourced from bitbet payouts ? i recall pete_dushenski saying the same happened to him, originally blamed it on multibit.
mircea_popescu: within "minutes", where "minutes" just neatly fits in the cartel head-of-best-chain report delay.
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: and to fix this then your advice is to what, make An+1 ? because then surely ? for how long ?
mircea_popescu: what do you do, make ANOTHER tx to go in the An delayed-forever pile ?
mircea_popescu: miners can attack any user, with an unsolvable "either doublepay or never pay" dilemma.