207800+ entries in 0.133s
ben_vulpes: would really like
that stateless verificator
ben_vulpes: checking could possibly be a
thing after
ben_vulpes: no i want
to see
the fucking signature
Framedragger: wasn't sure what you were
trying
to do, sorry - you want
to first decrypt a message, *then* check signature - but check how beyond 'signature is good'?
ben_vulpes: i guess i can --verbose and get
the mpi values?
Framedragger: ben_vulpes: you want whole signature contents in cleartext? ya may be difficult with stock gpg. otherwise
there's `--list-packets`
mircea_popescu: there's reasons we don't like
the sign-and-encrypt bs.
ben_vulpes: enTIREly unrelated, does anyone know how
to get gpg
to decrypt a message
that is also signed, but
to produce
the signature in addition
to saying
that
the signature is good?
☟︎ davout: i didn't see
this "has
to be spent before reappear"
davout: but it's not clear
to me how exactly
this works when
the first introduction of A was spent
davout: as i understand it, since it's removed from
the index
davout: there are
two cases here
davout: wouldn't it consider
the reintroduction as "already spent" ?
davout: say
there is a coinbase A in block 10
davout: it's very unclear
to me
davout: "Duplicate coinbases already exist in
the Midas Money block chain." <<< fucking priceless
davout: as mentioned a few lines earlier in
the log
davout: you can't have
this in bitcoin is all i'm saying
davout: i don't particularly care, just wondering about "you can do it with a system otherwise identical
to
traditional bitcoin"
trinque: seems like blocks because
they're otherwise makework
to have block reward in while empty
davout: don't see how, as far as i know you can't craft a
tx without providing
the
tx of its parents
davout: i'm not sure i grokked your 'casks' scheme, but if i understood what i did correctly positions would somehow be pre-allocated for
transactions, making
this possible again, right?
davout: no more spending before confirmed
then
mircea_popescu: it's actually how
the whole "not match earlier nonspent
txn" got added.
the author is
the death row inmate peter wuille.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform actually look up
that bip30
thing, it's related.
mircea_popescu: unlike elderly parents, was giving benefit of
teh
theory.
davout: mircea_popescu: seems coinbase needs same address but also same extraNonce
to compute
to same hash, you probably overestimate
the actual
txid collision count
mircea_popescu: so of
these
tens of
thousands of same-hash coinbases, which were hundreds if not
thousands of
times reorged, which is
the parentless coinbase ?
mircea_popescu: you're a fine gent, standing on a pile of "because so and so,
the sky is falling." "well... i don't see it fallen" "show me why not!"
mircea_popescu: now. a block with
these gets reorged. ALSO happened 100s of
times
to date.
mircea_popescu: and
this will ALWAYS resut in coinbase in
this sense with same hash.
mircea_popescu: okay. so basically you want a miner
to mine
twice
to
the same address. right ?
mircea_popescu: i'm sorry, you're
trying
to recreate a coinbase as in, miner subsidy ?
mircea_popescu: one
that's been spent has been spent. ergo is a doublespend.
mircea_popescu: now,
the cost
to mine a same-hash
tx
that is also meaningful other
than garbage is not
trivial.
mircea_popescu: altogether not a bad idea
to make a set of
test chains as per
the
tsting discussion last week.
this can surely be both part of it and
the incentive
to do it.
mircea_popescu: you're welcome
to do it any of
the
three ways, but rly nao.