log☇︎
213300+ entries in 0.131s
asciilifeform: danielpbarron: it does seem to reduce to the earlier 'let's say mining were what you did to make a tx, and there were no blocks as such' neh ?
asciilifeform: danielpbarron: didja write this up at length anywhere ?
a111: Logged on 2017-02-27 20:17 danielpbarron: asciilifeform, the staged-mining i had in mind was more like: a valid block can contain a bunch of coinbases as long as they add up to a specific difficulty-value. whoever finally puts the block together cannot steal the rewards of the lesser pieces, and it would be just as hard if not harder to make replacements for them to fill the rest of his block's space.
asciilifeform: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-02-27#1619314 << this is potentially interesting imho ☝︎
asciilifeform: ( now! for all i know, they wrote directly to mircea_popescu . but notice that he is not burning with the desire to share this fact. the secrecy incentive remains even for folks N degrees separated from a known miner ! )
asciilifeform: even though such high rollers as mircea_popescu , sometimes transmit tx through it.
asciilifeform: observe, no miners have written to asciilifeform asking for ssh-wire to dulap.
asciilifeform: afaik the real boojum is that miner has overwhelming incentive to stay secret, and the more powerful -- the moar so
trinque: this may very well be a bug; I'm not lauding the thing
trinque: miner will in both cases mine the txn he chooses and fuck you
a111: Logged on 2017-02-25 20:07 mircea_popescu: can you presently count the bitcoin networks that exist ?
asciilifeform: possibly this reduces to the http://btcbase.org/log/2017-02-25#1618268 problem ☝︎
trinque: is that "accurate" ?
trinque: I can send you a completely empty block now as a miner, and you'll take it
trinque: how is "accurate" defined other than "verifies against the last block I have"
asciilifeform: in anything like real time
asciilifeform: what incentive would a fullnode+miner have to send me accurate blocks ?
asciilifeform: but now picture if i had to own one of the six cartel nodes, to have a verifiable copy of blockchain.
trinque: the relay consolidation is already there; it's just obscured by nonsense hair
asciilifeform: but i can transmit.
asciilifeform: in so far as i can unmistakeably ~determine~ that my tx was not mined -- and know when it ~is~ -- i can transmit. it can take potentially infinite time...
trinque: it proceeds towards asciilifeform's "mining is a bug" point
trinque: how do you define that? it's in somebody's mempool?
trinque: can you though?
trinque: it could indeed be argued that only miner=relay increases the consolidation
asciilifeform: but i can transmit a tx. (for the time being)
asciilifeform: where you have 6 miners and their 6 nodes, being 'the network'.
asciilifeform: the other fundamental problem is that classical bitcoin comes with immense incentive for miner cartelization. if nothing were changed other than 'miner must be a proper node', we get what amounts to visa.
trinque: or is my node meant to lift "0.0000001%" the weight with all the other good socialists
asciilifeform: currently it is possible to break even as a miner without accepting ANY tx
trinque: are they payment processors or not
trinque: make them run the txn accepting infrastructure
asciilifeform: trinque: aha. the running thread was re: how might they be made to
trinque: because the actual people doing the mining are not bearing the cost of collecting that which they mine
a111: Logged on 2017-02-25 23:18 mircea_popescu: asciilifeform because the bitcoin network bandwith far exceeds the ACTUAL transaction needs of the civilised world.
danielpbarron: asciilifeform, the staged-mining i had in mind was more like: a valid block can contain a bunch of coinbases as long as they add up to a specific difficulty-value. whoever finally puts the block together cannot steal the rewards of the lesser pieces, and it would be just as hard if not harder to make replacements for them to fill the rest of his block's space. ☟︎
trinque: are we talking of ideal bitcoin or not wtf
asciilifeform: it ~failed to materialize. the continued existence of 0fee tx, anywhere, ever, is proof. ☟︎
trinque: if the fee market cannot pay for such a thing the mining has no future anyway
trinque: this diminishes over time
asciilifeform: than give away their positions.
trinque: put it upon my node to know enough miners
asciilifeform: because miners have more incentive for secrecy than they have for gathering txes from the wild.
asciilifeform: but in fact if this becomes common -- and you can think of the spamola attacks of last 2 yrs as in fact attempts to MAKE it happen -- propagation will stall.
trinque: and then if so why try to pay for the relay cost when it can be dropped
trinque: all I need is prior blocks; wtf am I running this mempool on a non-miner for?
asciilifeform: even today
asciilifeform: trinque: any node that wants to , is in fact welcome to drop the mempool on the floor
trinque: asciilifeform: why can I not simply transmit the txn directly to any node which has said via protocol "I want txns"
danielpbarron: i've wondered that too, trinque
trinque: let him take the expense; I'll verify his block later
trinque: miner wants the chicks, yet I'm supposed to STD test them for him
asciilifeform: or, if you like, a dog pound, where poor beasts await the soap boiler and ~sometimes~ somebody takes one home
trinque: doesn't really answer the question
asciilifeform: atm mempool works as a 'meat market' where the eligible chixx stand around, waiting, hoping for a serious mircea_popescu to show up and take'em home
trinque: the miner is the guy who is going to profit from the transaction being verified
trinque: you are trying to pay for the cost of each node verifying a txn
asciilifeform: gotta specify why the hypothetical conditions will differ from the current ones, trinque
asciilifeform: afaik nobody in tmsr has any direct link to any miner whasoever (or at the very least, wants to admit to it)
trinque: blast to nodes I know which have indicated an interest in mining them
asciilifeform: trinque: say trinque wants to transmit a tx
trinque: to ask perhaps a stupid question, what is the reason for all nodes running mempool, rather than only those nodes which are mining? ☟︎
asciilifeform: i could picture some clever mathemagical route whereby each hop can only take a portion of what the n-1-th node consented to -- but i know of no algo to make it thinkable.
asciilifeform: (even if you limit the total node feed to some small constant, the miner can ~still~ take ~100% of it, this way)
asciilifeform: if you let ANYONE, under ANY circumstances, appropriate some of the value of a tx without the consent of its original author, you create a sybil-feeder, where the last hop (i.e. the miner) can simply eat 100% by simulating the passage of the tx through 1,000,001 hops of fictional nodes. ☟︎
asciilifeform: oooook i finally realized that the problem -- as stated above -- is unsolvable
asciilifeform: also if 'a block has many fathers', as in contemplated scheme, this re-introduces the possibility of pool. which imho is a Bad Thing.
asciilifeform: this does 0 for 2nd hop tho.
asciilifeform: ( the above ^ now that i think about it, could be simplified to mircea_popescu's earlier 'node accepts if you put an output to his addr in your tx' )
asciilifeform: and this kind of scheme would also nuke 'canned tx', as discussed earlier. so not really such hot stuff.
asciilifeform: i can think of ~one~ approach, so far: tx creator asks his first-hop node for a nonce, which he then incorporates into his tx, which protocolically declares consent to the node fee. similarly to how miner fee already works. BUT this does not solve the problem of how 2nd ... nth hops, could add anything whatsoever meaningful to the tx.
asciilifeform: this may very well resolve to mircea_popescu's unsolved 'blind inputs' problem.
asciilifeform: but at the same time has to preserve the validity of the original tx creator's signature.
asciilifeform: (it has to be ~protocolic~, that is, something that the next-pass relay, or miner, could not simply strip out)
asciilifeform: danielpbarron: as i currently understand it, the encumbrance algo is the boojum.
danielpbarron: asciilifeform, i had a very similar idea re: staged-mining. came to it in considering a quality-coin where value is a product of quantity of units and a factor which decreases with each passing block
BingoBoingo: Plastics are fundamentally unequal to each other
asciilifeform: and now the interesting observation -- what's with the plastic parts (fan blades, connector headers) that did not melt or so much as warp ?
asciilifeform: archiving the images individually -- strangely, works : e.g., https://archive.is/7XgPb https://archive.is/a5fRg
asciilifeform: in other lulz, 'medium' now replaces images with blank turds whenever archive.is (and also ye olde archive.org !) saves a page there
asciilifeform: (before anyone laughs, i will point out, yes, the necessary mechanical parts for this do not presently exist.)
jhvh1: asciilifeform: The operation succeeded.
asciilifeform: !~later tell mircea_popescu here's another crackpottery in re the nodes/miners/txers 'racul, broasca si o stiuca' : ~multistage mining~. where a node can encumber (protocolically/mathematically - for now i will not specify how) a tx with some proofofwork, when passing it on to next relay; and when the tx is mined, the block reward is split between the multiple parents of the final tx.
asciilifeform: damn, i was hopin' he'd tell us about something he'd... gone, and gotten
trinque: as though the brain, dereferencing a null pointer, picks another at random ☟︎
trinque: the bizarre things that follow "who are you?"
asciilifeform: just like 'miners are nodes are txers' was jettisoned in, what, 1st year of bitcoin
asciilifeform: if 'spec' contains an 'octopus gland of death', item that can be safely and unilaterally jettisoned by a player, it'll be jettisoned
mircea_popescu: "i can scarcely see how could there be more of that"
asciilifeform: this is an ad-hoc, orcish version of the 'pay to play' discussed earlier.
mircea_popescu: cuz it's the fucking spec.
asciilifeform: which is not connected to mempool in the usual sense (why would, e.g., antpool, want to tell other pools your tx)
asciilifeform: then it presumably goes into the pipe.
mircea_popescu: it's broadcast ? to whom ? why not ? etc.
mircea_popescu: so if you piss it in, what then ?
asciilifeform: at this point it is not a mega-seekrit, that mempool only barely worx.
a111: Logged on 2017-02-27 17:11 mircea_popescu: consider http://btcbase.org/log/2017-02-19#1615679 ; nobody seems much perturbed that THE FIRST TIME A TRANSACTION WAS HEARD OF WAS WHEN IT SHOWED UP IN A BLOCK.
asciilifeform: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-02-27#1619219 << this is actually a regular thing -- recall, various pools have wwwtronic forms into which you can piss a tx directly ☝︎
asciilifeform: but it does not solve the 'nodes women' thing.
asciilifeform: (given mircea_popescu's algo, they more or less must vertically integrate.) then there will be equally little point for nonmining nodes to operate as there is today.