log☇︎
214000+ entries in 0.136s
mircea_popescu: if your idea of "i want to spend my dime" reduces to "well, have a mining farm" suddenly the whole thing's ~useless.
a111: Logged on 2017-02-23 18:58 mircea_popescu: asciilifeform the important point there is : the whole fake bitcoin address (3something) is supposed to be "useful" in practice. this utility is supposed to be proven by idiotic "challenges" like this one put up by peter todd. EXCEPT the output does not actually SIGN the transaction claiming the bounty.
mircea_popescu: consider the lulz yesterday with the peter todd imbecile, http://btcbase.org/log/2017-02-23#1617211 ☝︎
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: as in, 'fuck you, i won't relay this, your addr ends with my auschwitz tatoo number' ?)
asciilifeform: (if tx can be verified at line rate, nobody can do any more damage using tx flooding than they already can do by flooding your net pipe)
mircea_popescu: it's also possible to go "oh, go ahead and spend your bitcoinz lel"
asciilifeform: though O(1) verification could make this a nonproblem
asciilifeform: aha, even with mandatorily expiring tx, it is still possible to flood at low cost
mircea_popescu: again, at the time ppl cpumined on their node-miner-wallet nobody noticed the difference.
mircea_popescu: whereas the bar to participate is txn
asciilifeform: afaik it is one of the only two known steps in that direction (the other being wotronics. and we discussed what a coin that relies ~solely~ on wotronics, and not at all on proof-of-work, might look like.)
mircea_popescu: it's a step in that direction yes.
asciilifeform: 'if you notice that the world hashrate seems to now equal what you could make out of your kitchen appliances, you are probably on cooknet'
asciilifeform: and isn't that what the proof of work thing was originally about..?
mircea_popescu: what difference does that make ?
asciilifeform: i am at a loss as to how this problem is solvable in general case. aside from mircea_popescu's answer to my 'panopticon' thread, 'don't get caught in a jar!'
asciilifeform: there are as many 'bitcoin nets', theoretically, as there are nodes
mircea_popescu: most ustards do the later and have no idea.
mircea_popescu: consider the case of the web, also a major application in need of a debottler. how do you know whether you connect ot the internet or to the tomcooknet ?
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: this is inevitable fact of life, boxes live and die, wires are cut, new ones -- laid, etc
mircea_popescu: for all you know there's 45 different bitcoins going on right now, separated by a so-far universally permeable membrane.
asciilifeform: it seems like a terrible liability, for such a thing to be possible
asciilifeform: why is it necessary for anyone to know the global count of operating nodes
mircea_popescu: "how do i know i talk to nodes that are representative ? cheaply and easily ?" for instance.
asciilifeform: plox to elaborate
mircea_popescu: the g has a decent debottler built in ; the trb-i does not, and needs a few.
asciilifeform: (can fermi estimate,but that is not same!)
mircea_popescu: can you presently count the bitcoin networks that exist ? ☟︎
asciilifeform: what's that
mircea_popescu: what we don't really have is the stuff that we really need, such as debottlers.
asciilifeform: what we afaik don't have is 'incentive for node-keeping' algo (though mircea_popescu's partially solves this, by requiring miners to have healthy nodes)
mircea_popescu: yes, not terrible.
asciilifeform: to outline what we have so far : we've a 'must have all blocks' mining algo, from mircea_popescu ; we have a O(1)-verify-of-any-and-all-tx-and-blocks algo from asciilifeform (today) ; and we also now have a 'limited cpu cost for tx' algo.
mircea_popescu: and that's also why the hope of the beta bois whining around "nrx" because "girlz be mean yo" is so well set to be disabused. more market, not less, is the future.
mircea_popescu: that's why i aim to buy the arab girls rather than convert to islam. they can keep their fucking ethnosocialism.
mircea_popescu: the pill to socialism is market. make things marketable, no further problems. ☟︎
mircea_popescu: it can be priced see. if i wish to pay a ten bitcoin fee, i thereby have the right to make my tx last into the eons
asciilifeform: then solves 'to allcomers', because the cpu cycle cost of eating a tx can be determined in O(1).
asciilifeform: yes but ~require~ the latter ?
mircea_popescu: anyway, no need for "desried block" and "max block" both. just the latter suffices.
asciilifeform: there may exist some way to solve 'castle problem' that doesn't require a tx to stand alone 'for all time'.
mircea_popescu: wasn't so obvious back when ppl cpumined on the single windows binary
mircea_popescu: it inadvertently forces a node-miner tandem ("you don't like the mempopol, fucking mine it already")
asciilifeform: but this is an unlimited cheque, of sorts.
asciilifeform: and yes, the man in the besieged castle, would dearly love to broadcast an unexpiring tx, throw it in a glass bottle into the sea, and who knows, it will go to friendly lines
mircea_popescu: for one thing, very poor impedance match with human thought processes.
mircea_popescu: im not disputing unexpiring txn is a bojum
asciilifeform: yes but potentially never included, and always a cpu tax to all-comers.
asciilifeform: in that nodes are required to contemplate it again, and again, potentially forever
asciilifeform: trinque, mircea_popescu : the reason for my 'want-block' gedankenexperiment, is the 'high vacuum' line of thought from earlier. because any way you cut it, an unexpiring tx is a kind of cheque for unlimited number of cpu cycles from the rest of the world
trinque: would release but the thing doesn't need more legs
a111: Logged on 2017-02-25 19:39 trinque: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-02-25#1617985 << yes, I will look into storing pubkeys elsewhere, nuke keyring, pass pubkey each time to encrypt call.
asciilifeform: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-02-25#1618203 << if the only gpg op in your thing is verification, you can lift code from any of the vtrons, verbatim ☝︎
asciilifeform: and nobody will need to make much change to switch to 'p' keys/seals.
mircea_popescu: yeah. it was you know, so clunky and unhip, at the time.
asciilifeform: (he did make small mistake in his recurser, but that was separate thing)
mircea_popescu: incredibly prescient choice on mod6 's part with the .seals design
mircea_popescu: myeah. thanks obama sort of thing.
mircea_popescu: sorry for the mess, which it is.
trinque: mircea_popescu: ah yes I do. I'll need that pgpdump guy, store what's extracted from the key
mircea_popescu: yeah well, that's a diff story.
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: to defang gpg, must prevent it from writing to ANYWHERE on disk other than stdout
mircea_popescu: othewrwise you'll feed it to people, see ?
mircea_popescu: trinque it's more than that. must make sure the pubkey you wrote includes nothing but itself. one modulus.
trinque: whereas now I'm asking the keyring
trinque: mircea_popescu: right, register in this case would write a pubkey somewhere once, and always use that as the nick:key association
asciilifeform: and still permit canned tx.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform this existed historically, on say call bills etc.
asciilifeform: this would abolish bbet-like 'dr.evil sat on this tx until convenient moment, then mined it' when desired.
asciilifeform: on second thought, it seems to me that you could get everything you could possibly want from 'want-block', by making an optional 'max-block'
mircea_popescu: trinque my concern was more in the vein of, i don't want deedbot to answer with an item crafted as described to a !!key command
a111: Logged on 2017-02-25 17:04 mircea_popescu: trinque dja think deedbot should have an ad interim patch before tmsr pgp is released to take care of http://btcbase.org/log/2017-02-23#1617236 ?
trinque: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-02-25#1617985 << yes, I will look into storing pubkeys elsewhere, nuke keyring, pass pubkey each time to encrypt call. ☝︎☟︎
mircea_popescu: something is a higher bar than nothing.
asciilifeform: now let's work same example in hypothetical 'needs want-block'. there you would simply have to sign 2 tx, with same payload other than 'want-block', neh ?
mircea_popescu: which'd have required me to ~know something~ about the fake network.
mircea_popescu: if the network worked as you describe, i'd have had to choose on which network i wish to spend.
mircea_popescu: i now have two bitcoins - a real and a fake one.
mircea_popescu: let's see. i have a bitcoin. the network forks. i spend the bitcoin. the spend is valid on both networks and thus included by both networks. in different blocks.
asciilifeform: doesn't that make setting up the temperature pump harder, rather than easier ?
mircea_popescu: because the same txn was acceptable to both fork and real network.
asciilifeform: how's that
mircea_popescu: see, the fact that you don't have txn as you describe is what allowed me the "you will die if you fork" threat last year : i don't have to know jack about their chain to murder their chain.
asciilifeform: (the only alternative known to me, presently, is the matrix mechanics 'coin' we discussed on a few occasions, and that is 'martian' tech that nobody alive is necessarily qualified to operate )
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: the unfortunate bit is that having global consensused state (blocks) at all, already does this
mircea_popescu: it suspiciously reinstills socialism in that it creates a very strong incentive for... all castles to... work together. because "first they came for the germans" usual bugaboo of socialist propaganda to try and dissolve the outer membranes of the individual organism's cells.
asciilifeform: trinque, mircea_popescu : to my naked eye, looks like you could get best of both world, by making 'want-block' optional
mircea_popescu: trinque there's all that.
mircea_popescu: somewhat in the same way a retarded child who buys things but always ends up using them as if they were icecream doesn't thereby realise he's retarded.
trinque: or, messenger has to have privkey
mircea_popescu: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-02-25#1618154 << it's so funny, at least to me, the sheer wastage of resources usg oligarchs engage in. they keep buying things, which they don't understand, on the expectation that "we;ll find a use for them". they do. it's ALWAYS the same one. somehow the fact that i know in advance what it'll be doesn't inform them as to their horrible strategic position. ☝︎
trinque: net blockade == no transactions smuggled out
trinque: imagining one under attack, it could certainly prevent him from blasting coin to another castle before defeat
asciilifeform: he has to know the actual best-block.
mircea_popescu: whether this is desirable or not is very much an open question, but it is too early yet to weigh on the matter.
mircea_popescu: anyway. the main problem, barely conveyed by the "canned tx" thing, is that if you require the user to know more than his privkey to make a txn, you make usage a higher bar than it is now.
asciilifeform: which is why i won't even take a position on this , and leave it up to folx who actually worked this scenario in real life , e.g. mircea_popescu .
asciilifeform: if no canned tx permitted -- this is no longer possible.
asciilifeform: trinque: looser variant buys you 'i can give canned tx to my friend so he can move my coin to /dev/null when usg shoots me, but nowhere else'
asciilifeform: in the stricter variant -- not