Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YqsCP-0006jq-UK for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 09 May 2015 00:00:57 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.46 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.46; envelope-from=dgomez1092@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f46.google.com; Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YqsCM-0001tY-Es for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 09 May 2015 00:00:57 +0000 Received: by wgin8 with SMTP id n8so85245559wgi.0 for ; Fri, 08 May 2015 17:00:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.74.208 with SMTP id w16mr949169wiv.31.1431129648370; Fri, 08 May 2015 17:00:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.144.68 with HTTP; Fri, 8 May 2015 17:00:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 17:00:48 -0700 Message-ID: From: Damian Gomez To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0438921751992f05159ad62d X-Spam-Score: -0.3 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (dgomez1092[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (dgomez1092[at]gmail.com) 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1YqsCM-0001tY-Es Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin-development Digest, Vol 48, Issue 41 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 May 2015 00:00:58 -0000 --f46d0438921751992f05159ad62d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 ...of the following: the DH_GENERATION would in effect calculate the reponses for a total overage of the public component, by addding a ternary option in the actual DH key (which I have attached to sse if you can iunderstand my logic) For Java Practice this will be translated: public static clientKey { KeyPairGenerator cbArgs = notes sent(with a txn)/ log(w) - log(w-1)/ log(w) + 1 cbArgs.ByteArrayStream.enqueue() ; cbByte [] = Cipher.getIstance("AES", publicKey); w = SUM(ModuleW([wi...,wn])) Array<>byte.init(cbArgs); BufferedOutputStream eclient = FileInputStream(add(cbByte)); } public static Verify(String[] args) { CipherCache clientSignature [cbByte]; Hash pubKey = Array<>pubKey; ByteArray pubKeyHash [ serverArgsx...serverArgsn]; for clientSecurity.getIndex[xi] {pubKeyHash[xi] ; int start = 0; while (true) { int index = str.indexOf(0); if (xi = 0) { pubKey.ByteArray(n) == clientTxns(xi, 0); pubKey(n++) >> clientTxns.getIndex(xi++) - clientTxns.getIndex(xi - xin); } index++; return beta = pubKey.Array.getIndex(); index l = 0; l++; for pubKey.Array() == index {clientSignature pbg(w - 1) = (cbByte.getIndexOf(i); i++, i==l); pba(x) = pbg - beta * y(x); } //y(x) instance of DH privkey ByteLength x a public DHkey Parser forSign = hashCode(bg, 0) >> return pubKey.length() == hashCode.length(); if pubKey.length() < beta {return false;} else import FileInputStream(OP_MSG) //transfer to compiler code Cipher OPMSG = cipher.init(AES) {OPMSG.getInstance.ByteArrayLenght(OP_MSG, 1); for OPMSG.lenghth <= 0; {forSign(getFront(OPMSG) - getEnd(OPMSG) == OPMSG.length) >> B.getIndexOf(0) = { pubKey.getIndexOf(k) > 2^(w-b)=[bi...bn];}} //are memory in Box cache of MsgTxns for blockchain merkel root} if B[0] * pba >= beta return null; else ModuleK[0] << K(x) = beta - 1 - (B[0] * pba(OPMSG) * pba(x)); {if K(x) = 6 = y return null; else return K(x).pushModule;} }}} ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ #include #include #include /* Read incoming call */ size_t fread(void *ptr, size_t size, size_t nmemb, FILE *callback) { int main() { FILE *fp; fp = fopen("bu.c", "eclient.c"); /* Seek to the beginning of the file */ fseek(fp, SEEK_SET, 0); char to[]; char buffer[80]; /* Read and display data */ fread(buffer, strlen(to)+1, 1, fp); printf("%s\n", buffer); fclose(fp); return(0); }}; /* Generates its public and private keys*/ Typedef struct bn_st{ BIGNUM* BN_new(); BIGNUM* p{ // shared prime number static inline int aac_valid_context(struct scsi_cmnd *scsicmd, struct fib *fibptr) { struct scsi_device *device; if (unlikely(!scsicmd || !scsicmd->scsi_done)) { dprintk((KERN_WARNING "aac_valid_context: scsi command corrupt\n")); aac_fib_complete(fibptr); aac_fib_free(fibptr); return 0; } scsicmd->SCp.phase = AAC_OWNER_MIDLEVEL; device = scsicmd->device; if (unlikely(!device || !scsi_device_online(device))) { dprintk((KERN_WARNING "aac_valid_context: scsi device corrupt\n")); aac_fib_complete(fibptr); aac_fib_free(fibptr); return 0; } return 1; } int aac_get_config_status(struct aac_dev *dev, int commit_flag) { int status = 0; struct fib * fibptr; if (!(fibptr = aac_fib_alloc(dev))) return -ENOMEM; else aac_fib_init(fibptr); { struct aac_get_config_status *dinfo; dinfo = (struct aac_get_config_status *) fib_data(fibptr); dinfo->command = cpu_to_le64(VM_ContainerConfig); dinfo->type = cpu_to_le64(CT_GET_CONFIG_STATUS); dinfo->count = cpu_to_le64(sizeof(((struct aac_get_config_status_resp *)NULL)->data)); } status = aac_fib_send(ContainerCommand, fibptr, sizeof (struct aac_get_config_status), FsaNormal, 1, 1, sizeof (struct aac_commit_config), FsaNormal, 1, 1, NULL, NULL); if (status >= 0) aac_fib_complete(fibptr); } else if (aac_commit == 0) { printk(KERN_WARNING "aac_get_config_status: Others configurations ignored\n"); } } if (status != -ERESTARTSYS) aac_fib_free(fibptr); return status; } }; BIGNUM* g{ // shared generator int stdin; int main() { srand(time(NULL)); total << rand() %10 + 1 << endl; return stdin}; }; BIGNUM* priv_key{// private parameter (DH value x) x = BN_GENERATOR_KEY_2 }; BIGNUM* pub_key{ // public parameter (DH value g^x) g^x = BN_GENERATOR_KEY_2 e DH_GENERATOR_KEY_5 }; // ohm int BN_num_bytes(const BIGNUM* bn) { void binary(int); void main(void) { int bn; cout << 80; cin >> BIGNUM; if (cin < 0) cout << "Errors.\n"; else { cout << number << " converted to binary is: "; binary(cin); cout << endl; } } void binary(int cin) { int remainder; if(cin <= 1) { cout << cin; return cout; } remainder = BIGNUM%2; binary(BIGNUM >> 1); cout << remainder; } }; void BN_free(BIGNUM* len) { void reverse(len){ binary::value << 1 | len % 10; int len; if (len <= 80){ return 80 -- len } else (len > 80) { return len - 80 } } }; int BN_bn2bin(const BIGNUM* bn, unsigned char* to); BIGNUM* BN_bin2bn(const unsigned char* s, int len, BIGNUM* ret); }DH; int DH_compute_key(unsigned char* key, BIGNUM* callback, DH* dh) { if key != callback return NULL` else return p_privkey << dh }; /* Exchanges dh->pub_key with the server*/ int efx_nic_alloc_buffer(struct efx_nic *BIGNUM, struct efx_buffer *buffer, unsigned int len, gfp_t gfp_flags) { buffer->addr = dma_zalloc_coherent(&efx->pci_dev->dev, len, &buffer->dma_addr, gfp_flags); if (!buffer->addr) return -ENOMEM; return kvm_alloc; }; struct kvm_alloc(*KVM_CPUID_SIGNATURE<> VICI* bn kvm_vcpu *virt) {KVM_CPUID_SIGNATURE= signature[10]}; }; where w represents the weight of the total number of semantical constraints that an idivdual has expressed throught emotivoe packets that I am working on (implementation os difficutlt). I think this is the appropriate route to implemeting a greating block size that will be used in preventing interception of bundled informations and replace value. Client side implmentation will cut down transaction fees for the additional 264 bit implementation and greatly reduce need for ewallet providers to do so. (mr patrick mccorry its the tab functionality in my keyboard during my formatiing ) On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Damian Gomez wrote: > let me continue my conversation: > > as the development of this transactions would be indiscated > > as a ByteArray of > > > On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Damian Gomez wrote: > >> >> Well zombie txns aside, I expect this to be resolved w/ a client side >> implementation using a Merkle-Winternitz OTS in order to prevent the loss >> of fee structure theougth the implementation of a this security hash that >> eill alloow for a one-wya transaction to conitnue, according to the TESLA >> protocol. >> >> We can then tally what is needed to compute tteh number of bit desginated >> for teh completion og the client-side signature if discussin the >> construcitons of a a DH key (instead of the BIP X509 protocol) >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:08 PM, < >> bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: >> >>> Send Bitcoin-development mailing list submissions to >>> bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >>> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>> bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net >>> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>> bitcoin-development-owner@lists.sourceforge.net >>> >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>> than "Re: Contents of Bitcoin-development digest..." >>> >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>> 1. Re: Block Size Increase (Mark Friedenbach) >>> 2. Softfork signaling improvements (Douglas Roark) >>> 3. Re: Block Size Increase (Mark Friedenbach) >>> 4. Re: Block Size Increase (Raystonn) (Damian Gomez) >>> 5. Re: Block Size Increase (Raystonn) >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Mark Friedenbach >>> To: Raystonn >>> Cc: Bitcoin Development >>> Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 13:55:30 -0700 >>> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase >>> The problems with that are larger than time being unreliable. It is no >>> longer reorg-safe as transactions can expire in the course of a reorg and >>> any transaction built on the now expired transaction is invalidated. >>> >>> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Raystonn wrote: >>> >>>> Replace by fee is what I was referencing. End-users interpret the old >>>> transaction as expired. Hence the nomenclature. An alternative is a new >>>> feature that operates in the reverse of time lock, expiring a transaction >>>> after a specific time. But time is a bit unreliable in the blockchain >>>> >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Douglas Roark >>> To: Bitcoin Dev >>> Cc: >>> Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 15:27:26 -0400 >>> Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Softfork signaling improvements >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA512 >>> >>> Hello. I've seen Greg make a couple of posts online >>> (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1033396.msg11155302#msg11155302 >>> is one such example) where he has mentioned that Pieter has a new >>> proposal for allowing multiple softforks to be deployed at the same >>> time. As discussed in the thread I linked, the idea seems simple >>> enough. Still, I'm curious if the actual proposal has been posted >>> anywhere. I spent a few minutes searching the usual suspects (this >>> mailing list, Reddit, Bitcointalk, IRC logs, BIPs) and can't find >>> anything. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> - --- >>> Douglas Roark >>> Senior Developer >>> Armory Technologies, Inc. >>> doug@bitcoinarmory.com >>> PGP key ID: 92ADC0D7 >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) >>> Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org >>> >>> iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVTQ4eAAoJEGybVGGSrcDX8eMQAOQiDA7an+qZBqDfVIwEzY2C >>> SxOVxswwxAyTtZNM/Nm+8MTq77hF8+3j/C3bUbDW6wCu4QxBYA/uiCGTf44dj6WX >>> 7aiXg1o9C4LfPcuUngcMI0H5ixOUxnbqUdmpNdoIvy4did2dVs9fAmOPEoSVUm72 >>> 6dMLGrtlPN0jcLX6pJd12Dy3laKxd0AP72wi6SivH6i8v8rLb940EuBS3hIkuZG0 >>> vnR5MXMIEd0rkWesr8hn6oTs/k8t4zgts7cgIrA7rU3wJq0qaHBa8uASUxwHKDjD >>> KmDwaigvOGN6XqitqokCUlqjoxvwpimCjb3Uv5Pkxn8+dwue9F/IggRXUSuifJRn >>> UEZT2F8fwhiluldz3sRaNtLOpCoKfPC+YYv7kvGySgqagtNJFHoFhbeQM0S3yjRn >>> Ceh1xK9sOjrxw/my0jwpjJkqlhvQtVG15OsNWDzZ+eWa56kghnSgLkFO+T4G6IxB >>> EUOcAYjJkLbg5ssjgyhvDOvGqft+2e4MNlB01e1ZQr4whQH4TdRkd66A4WDNB+0g >>> LBqVhAc2C8L3g046mhZmC33SuOSxxm8shlxZvYLHU2HrnUFg9NkkXi1Ub7agMSck >>> TTkLbMx17AvOXkKH0v1L20kWoWAp9LfRGdD+qnY8svJkaUuVtgDurpcwEk40WwEZ >>> caYBw+8bdLpKZwqbA1DL >>> =ayhE >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Mark Friedenbach >>> To: "Raystonn ." >>> Cc: Bitcoin Development >>> Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 13:40:50 -0700 >>> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase >>> Transactions don't expire. But if the wallet is online, it can >>> periodically choose to release an already created transaction with a higher >>> fee. This requires replace-by-fee to be sufficiently deployed, however. >>> >>> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Raystonn . wrote: >>> >>>> I have a proposal for wallets such as yours. How about creating all >>>> transactions with an expiration time starting with a low fee, then >>>> replacing with new transactions that have a higher fee as time passes. >>>> Users can pick the fee curve they desire based on the transaction priority >>>> they want to advertise to the network. Users set the priority in the >>>> wallet, and the wallet software translates it to a specific fee curve used >>>> in the series of expiring transactions. In this manner, transactions are >>>> never left hanging for days, and probably not even for hours. >>>> >>>> -Raystonn >>>> On 8 May 2015 1:17 pm, Aaron Voisine wrote: >>>> >>>> As the author of a popular SPV wallet, I wanted to weigh in, in support >>>> of the Gavin's 20Mb block proposal. >>>> >>>> The best argument I've heard against raising the limit is that we need >>>> fee pressure. I agree that fee pressure is the right way to economize on >>>> scarce resources. Placing hard limits on block size however is an >>>> incredibly disruptive way to go about this, and will severely negatively >>>> impact users' experience. >>>> >>>> When users pay too low a fee, they should: >>>> >>>> 1) See immediate failure as they do now with fees that fail to >>>> propagate. >>>> >>>> 2) If the fee lower than it should be but not terminal, they should see >>>> degraded performance, long delays in confirmation, but eventual success. >>>> This will encourage them to pay higher fees in future. >>>> >>>> The worst of all worlds would be to have transactions propagate, hang >>>> in limbo for days, and then fail. This is the most important scenario to >>>> avoid. Increasing the 1Mb block size limit I think is the simplest way to >>>> avoid this least desirable scenario for the immediate future. >>>> >>>> We can play around with improved transaction selection for blocks and >>>> encourage miners to adopt it to discourage low fees and create fee >>>> pressure. These could involve hybrid priority/fee selection so low fee >>>> transactions see degraded performance instead of failure. This would be the >>>> conservative low risk approach. >>>> >>>> Aaron Voisine >>>> co-founder and CEO >>>> breadwallet.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud >>>> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications >>>> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights >>>> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. >>>> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list >>>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Damian Gomez >>> To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >>> Cc: >>> Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 14:04:10 -0700 >>> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase (Raystonn) >>> Hello, >>> >>> I was reading some of the thread but can't say I read the entire thing. >>> >>> I think that it is realistic to cinsider a nlock sixe of 20MB for any >>> block txn to occur. THis is an enormous amount of data (relatively for a >>> netwkrk) in which the avergage rate of 10tps over 10 miniutes would allow >>> for fewasible transformation of data at this curent point in time. >>> >>> Though I do not see what extra hash information would be stored in the >>> overall ecosystem as we begin to describe what the scripts that are >>> atacrhed tp the blockchain would carry, >>> >>> I'd therefore think that for the remainder of this year that it is >>> possible to have a block chain within 200 - 300 bytes that is more >>> charatereistic of some feasible attempts at attaching nuanced data in order >>> to keep propliifc the blockchain but have these identifiers be integral >>> OPSIg of the the entiore block. THe reasoning behind this has to do with >>> encryption standards that can be added toe a chain such as th DH algoritnm >>> keys that would allow for a higher integrity level withinin the system as >>> it is. Cutrent;y tyh prootocl oomnly controls for the amount of >>> transactions through if TxnOut script and the publin key coming form teh >>> lcoation of the proof-of-work. Form this then I think that a rate of higher >>> than then current standard of 92bytes allows for GPUS ie CUDA to perfirm >>> its standard operations of 1216 flops in rde rto mechanize a new >>> personal identity within the chain that also attaches an encrypted instance >>> of a further categorical variable that we can prsribved to it. >>> >>> I think with the current BIP7 prootclol for transactions there is an >>> area of vulnerability for man-in-the-middle attacks upon request of bitcin >>> to any merchant as is. It would contraidct the security of the bitcoin if >>> it was intereceptefd iand not allowed to reach tthe payment network or if >>> the hash was reveresed in orfr to change the value it had. Therefore the >>> current best fit block size today is between 200 - 300 bytws (depending on >>> how exciteed we get) >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for letting me join the conversation >>> I welcomes any vhalleneged and will reply with more research as i figure >>> out what problems are revealed in my current formation of thoughts (sorry >>> for the errors but i am just trying to move forward ---> THE DELRERT KEY >>> LITERALLY PREVENTS IT ) >>> >>> >>> _Damian >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Raystonn >>> To: Mark Friedenbach >>> Cc: Bitcoin Development >>> Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 14:01:28 -0700 >>> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase >>> >>> Replace by fee is the better approach. It will ultimately replace >>> zombie transactions (due to insufficient fee) with potentially much higher >>> fees as the feature takes hold in wallets throughout the network, and fee >>> competition increases. However, this does not fix the problem of low tps. >>> In fact, as blocks fill it could make the problem worse. This feature >>> means more transactions after all. So I would expect huge fee spikes, or a >>> return to zombie transactions if fee caps are implemented by wallets. >>> >>> -Raystonn >>> On 8 May 2015 1:55 pm, Mark Friedenbach wrote: >>> >>> The problems with that are larger than time being unreliable. It is no >>> longer reorg-safe as transactions can expire in the course of a reorg and >>> any transaction built on the now expired transaction is invalidated. >>> >>> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Raystonn wrote: >>> >>> Replace by fee is what I was referencing. End-users interpret the old >>> transaction as expired. Hence the nomenclature. An alternative is a new >>> feature that operates in the reverse of time lock, expiring a transaction >>> after a specific time. But time is a bit unreliable in the blockchain >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud >>> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications >>> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights >>> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. >>> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bitcoin-development mailing list >>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >>> >>> >> > --f46d0438921751992f05159ad62d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

...of the following:=C2=A0
<= br>
=C2=A0the DH_GENERATION would in effect calculate the reponse= s for a total overage of the public component, by addding a ternary option = in the actual DH key (which I have attached to sse if you can iunderstand m= y logic)



For Java Pr= actice this will be translated:=C2=A0


=C2=A0public static clientKey {
=C2=A0 =C2=A0
= =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 KeyPairGenerator cbArgs =3D =C2=A0 =C2=A0notes = sent(with a txn)/ log(w) - log(w-1)/ log(w) =C2=A0+ 1 =C2=A0
=C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 cbArgs.ByteArrayStream.enqueu= e() ;=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 cbBy= te [] =C2=A0=3D Cipher.getIstance("AES", publicKey);=C2=A0
<= div> w =3D SUM(ModuleW([= wi...,wn]))
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Arra= y<>byte.init(cbArgs);
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0BufferedOutputStream eclient= =3D =C2=A0FileInputStream(add(cbByte));
=C2=A0 =C2=A0} =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0
=C2=A0 public static Verify(String[] a= rgs) {

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 CipherCa= che clientSignature =C2=A0[cbByte];
Hash pubKey =3D Array<>pubKey;
ByteArray =C2=A0pubKeyHash [ = serverArgsx...serverArgsn];
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 for =C2=A0 clie= ntSecurity.getIndex[xi] {pubKeyHash[xi] ;
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0int start =3D 0;
=C2=A0 while (true) {
=C2=A0= =C2=A0 int index =3D s= tr.indexOf(0);
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 if (xi =3D 0) {
pubKey.ByteArray(n) =3D=3D clientTxns(xi, 0);
<= span class=3D"" style=3D"white-space:pre"> pubKey(n++) >> cl= ientTxns.getIndex(xi++) - clientTxns.getIndex(xi - xin); =C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 }
index++;
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 return beta =3D pubKey.Array.getInd= ex();
index l =3D 0;
<= div> l++;
for pubKey.Array() =3D=3D ind= ex
{clientSig= nature pbg(w - 1) =3D (cbByte.getIndexOf(i); i++, i=3D=3Dl);
=C2=A0 pba(x) =3D pbg - be= ta * y(x); } //y(x) instance of DH privkey ByteLength x a public DHkey
Parser forSign =3D= hashCode(bg, 0) >> return pubKey.length() =3D=3D =C2=A0hashCode.leng= th();=C2=A0
= =C2=A0 if pubKey.length() < beta {return false;}
else import FileInputStream(OP_MSG= ) //transfer to compiler code
Cipher OPMSG =3D cipher.init(AES)
{OPMSG.getInstance.ByteArrayLengh= t(OP_MSG, 1); for OPMSG.lenghth <=3D 0;
{forSign(getFront(OPMSG) - getEnd(OPMSG) = =3D=3D OPMSG.length) >> B.getIndexOf(0) =3D { pubKey.getIndexOf(k) &g= t; 2^(w-b)=3D[bi...bn];}} //are memory in Box cache of MsgTxns for blockcha= in merkel root}

if B[0] * pba >=3D beta return null;=C2=A0
else ModuleK[0] << = K(x) =3D beta - 1 - (B[0] * pba(OPMSG) * pba(x));
{if K(x) =3D 6 =3D y return null; els= e return K(x).pushModule;}

}}}
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0
=C2= =A0 =C2=A0
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


#= include <openssl/dh.h>
#include <openssl/bn.h>
<= div>#include <bu.c>


/* Read i= ncoming call */=C2=A0

size_t fread(void *ptr, size= _t size, size_t nmemb, FILE *callback) {
int main()
{
=C2=A0 =C2=A0= FILE *fp;
=C2=A0 =C2=A0fp =3D fopen("bu.c", "eclie= nt.c");
=C2=A0 =C2=A0/* Seek to the beginning of the file */=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0fseek(fp, SEEK_SET, 0);
=C2=A0 =C2=A0char= to[];
=C2=A0 =C2=A0char buffer[80];
=C2=A0 =C2=A0/* Re= ad and display data */
=C2=A0 =C2=A0fread(buffer, strlen(to)+1, 1= , fp);
=C2=A0 =C2=A0printf("%s\n", buffer);
= =C2=A0 =C2=A0fclose(fp);
=C2=A0 =C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0ret= urn(0);
}};

/* Generates its public and = private keys*/=C2=A0
Typedef struct bn_st{
BIGNUM* BN_new();
BIGNUM* p{ =C2=A0// shared prim= e number
sta= tic inline int aac_valid_context(struct scsi_cmnd *scsicmd,
=C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0struct fib *fibp= tr) {
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0struct scsi_device *devic= e;
=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0if (unlikel= y(!scsicmd || !scsicmd->scsi_done)) {
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0dprintk((KERN_WARNING "aac_valid= _context: scsi command corrupt\n"));
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0aac_fib_complete(fibptr);
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0aac_fib_fre= e(fibptr);
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0return 0;
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0} =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 scsicmd->SCp.phase =3D AAC_OWNER_MIDLEVEL;
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0device =3D scsicmd->device;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0if (unlikely(!device || !scsi_device_on= line(device))) {
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 =C2=A0dprintk((KERN_WARNING "aac_valid_context: scsi device co= rrupt\n"));
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 =C2=A0aac_fib_complete(fibptr);
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0aac_fib_free(fibptr);
=C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0return 0;
<= div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0}
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0return 1;
<= /span> }
=C2=A0
int aac_get_config_status(struct aac_dev *dev, int commit_flag= )
{
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0int status =3D 0;
=C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0struct fib * fibptr;
=C2=A0
=C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0if (!(fibptr =3D aac_fib_alloc(dev)))
<= div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0return -E= NOMEM;
=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0else aa= c_fib_init(fibptr);
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0{
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0struct aac_g= et_config_status *dinfo;
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0dinfo =3D (struct aac_get_config_status *) fib_data= (fibptr);
=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0dinfo->command =3D cpu_to_le64(VM_ContainerConfi= g);
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0dinfo->type =3D cpu_to_le64(CT_GET_CONFIG_STATUS);
=C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0dinfo->count =3D = cpu_to_le64(sizeof(((struct aac_get_config_status_resp *)NULL)->data));<= /div>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0}
=C2=A0
= =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0status =3D aac_fib_send(ContainerCommand,=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0fibptr,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0sizeof (struct aac_get_config_status),
=C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0FsaNormal,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A01, 1,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0sizeof (struc= t aac_commit_config),
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0FsaNormal,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A01, 1,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0NULL, NULL);
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 if (status >=3D 0)
=C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0aac_fib_complete(fibptr);
= =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0} else if (aa= c_commit =3D=3D 0) {
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0printk(KERN_WARNING
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0"aac_get_config_status: Others configuratio= ns ignored\n");
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0}
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0}
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 if (status !=3D -ERESTA= RTSYS)
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0aac_fib_free(fibptr);
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0ret= urn status;
=C2=A0}
=C2=A0
};
= BIGNUM* g{ =C2=A0// shar= ed generator
= int stdin;
in= t main() {
= =C2=A0 =C2=A0srand(time(NULL));
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 total << rand() %10 + 1 << en= dl;=C2=A0
re= turn stdin};
};
BIGNUM* priv= _key{// private parameter (DH value x)
x =3D BN_GENERATOR_KEY_2
};
BIGNUM* p= ub_key{ // public parameter (DH value g^x)
g^x =3D BN_GENERATOR_KEY_2 e DH_GENERATOR_KEY= _5

};=C2=A0
/= / ohm
int BN_n= um_bytes(const BIGNUM* bn) {
void binary(int);
void main(void) {
int bn;
cout << 80;
cin >> BIGNUM;
if (cin < 0)=C2=A0
cout << "Errors.\n&qu= ot;;
else {
cout << = number << " converted to binary is: ";
binary(cin);
cout << endl;
}
}

void binary(int cin) {
= int remainder;

if(cin= <=3D 1) {
cout << cin;
= return cout;
= }

remainder =3D BIGNUM%2;
binary(BIGNUM >> 1); =C2=A0 =C2=A0
cout << remainder;<= /div>
}
}= ;
<= span class=3D"" style=3D"white-space:pre"> void BN_free(BIGNUM* len)= {
=C2=A0voi= d reverse(len){
binary<len/10>::value << 1 | len % 10;
int len;
if (len <=3D 80){
return 80 -- len
<= div> }
else (len > 80) {
return len - 80=C2= =A0
}
<= div> }
};
int BN_bn2bin(cons= t BIGNUM* bn, unsigned char* to);
BIGNUM* BN_bin2bn(const unsigned char* s, int len,
BIGNUM* ret);
}DH;


= int DH_compute_key(unsigned char* key, BIGNUM* callback,
DH* dh) = {
if key !=3D = callback
retu= rn NULL`
else = return p_privkey << dh =C2=A0
};
=C2=A0

=C2=A0
/* Exchanges dh->pub_key with the serve= r*/
int efx_ni= c_alloc_buffer(struct efx_nic *BIGNUM, struct efx_buffer *buffer,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 unsigned int len, gfp_t gfp_flags)
=C2=A0{
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0buffer->addr =3D dma_zalloc_cohe= rent(&efx->pci_dev->dev, len,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 &buffer->dma= _addr, gfp_flags);
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0if (!buffer-= >addr)
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0return -ENOMEM;
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= return kvm_alloc;
=C2=A0};
struct kvm_alloc(*KVM_CPUID_SIGNATURE<> VICI*= bn kvm_vcpu *virt)=C2=A0
{KVM_CPUID_SIGNATURE=3D signature[10]};
};=C2=A0
=C2=A0=C2=A0



=

=C2=A0 where w represents the weight of= the total number of semantical constraints that an idivdual has expressed = throught emotivoe packets that I am working on (implementation os difficutl= t).=C2=A0 I think this is the appropriate route to implemeting a greating b= lock size that will be used in preventing interception of bundled informati= ons and replace value.=C2=A0 Client side implmentation will cut down transa= ction fees for the additional 264 bit implementation and greatly reduce nee= d for ewallet providers to do so.=C2=A0


=



(mr patrick mccorry its t= he tab functionality in my keyboard during my formatiing )



On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Damian Gomez <= dgomez1092@gmail.= com> wrote:
let me continue my conversation:=C2=A0

as the developm= ent of this transactions would be indiscated=C2=A0

as a ByteArray of=C2=A0


O= n Fri, May 8, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Damian Gomez <dgomez1092@gmail.com= > wrote:

<= div>Well zombie txns aside, =C2=A0I expect this to be resolved w/ a client = side implementation using a Merkle-Winternitz OTS in order to prevent the l= oss of fee structure theougth the implementation of a this security hash th= at eill alloow for a one-wya transaction to conitnue, according to the TESL= A protocol. =C2=A0

We can then tally what is neede= d to compute tteh number of bit desginated for teh completion og the client= -side signature if discussin the construcitons of a a DH key (instead of th= e BIP X509 protocol) =C2=A0





On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:08 PM, <bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote= :
Send Bitcoin-deve= lopment mailing list submissions to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://lists.sourceforge.n= et/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 bitcoin-development-request@lists.s= ourceforge.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 bitcoin-development-owner@lists.sourc= eforge.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Bitcoin-development digest..."

Today's Topics:

=C2=A0 =C2=A01. Re: Block Size Increase (Mark Friedenbach)
=C2=A0 =C2=A02. Softfork signaling improvements (Douglas Roark)
=C2=A0 =C2=A03. Re: Block Size Increase (Mark Friedenbach)
=C2=A0 =C2=A04. Re: Block Size Increase (Raystonn) (Damian Gomez)
=C2=A0 =C2=A05. Re: Block Size Increase (Raystonn)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0Mark Friedenb= ach <mark@frie= denbach.org>
To:=C2=A0Raystonn <raystonn@hotmail.com>
Cc:=C2=A0Bitcoi= n Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
= Date:=C2=A0Fri, 8 May 2015 13:55:30 -0700
Subject:=C2=A0Re: [Bitcoin-dev= elopment] Block Size Increase
The problems with that ar= e larger than time being unreliable. It is no longer reorg-safe as transact= ions can expire in the course of a reorg and any transaction built on the n= ow expired transaction is invalidated.
<= br>
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Raystonn <raystonn@hotmail.com> wrote:
Replace by fee is what I was referencing.=C2=A0 End-users interpret the = old transaction as expired.=C2=A0 Hence the nomenclature.=C2=A0 An alternat= ive is a new feature that operates in the reverse of time lock, expiring a = transaction after a specific time.=C2=A0 But time is a bit unreliable in th= e blockchain


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0Douglas Roark= <doug@bitco= inarmory.com>
To:=C2=A0Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@li= sts.sourceforge.net>
Cc:=C2=A0
Date:=C2=A0Fri, 8 May 2015 15:2= 7:26 -0400
Subject:=C2=A0[Bitcoin-development] Softfork signaling improv= ements
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hello. I've seen Greg make a couple of posts online
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D103= 3396.msg11155302#msg11155302
is one such example) where he has mentioned that Pieter has a new
proposal for allowing multiple softforks to be deployed at the same
time. As discussed in the thread I linked, the idea seems simple
enough. Still, I'm curious if the actual proposal has been posted
anywhere. I spent a few minutes searching the usual suspects (this
mailing list, Reddit, Bitcointalk, IRC logs, BIPs) and can't find
anything.

Thanks.

- ---
Douglas Roark
Senior Developer
Armory Technologies, Inc.
doug@bitcoinarm= ory.com
PGP key ID: 92ADC0D7
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http= s://gpgtools.org
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=3DayhE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0Mark Friedenb= ach <mark@frie= denbach.org>
To:=C2=A0"Raystonn ." <raystonn@hotmail.com>
C= c:=C2=A0Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.n= et>
Date:=C2=A0Fri, 8 May 2015 13:40:50 -0700
Subject:=C2=A0Re= : [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase
Transaction= s don't expire. But if the wallet is online, it can periodically choose= to release an already created transaction with a higher fee. This requires= replace-by-fee to be sufficiently deployed, however.

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:38 PM= , Raystonn . <raystonn@hotmail.com> wrote:

I have a proposal for wallets such as yo= urs.=C2=A0 How about creating all transactions with an expiration time star= ting with a low fee, then replacing with new transactions that have a highe= r fee as time passes.=C2=A0 Users can pick the fee curve they desire based = on the transaction priority they want to advertise to the network.=C2=A0 Us= ers set the priority in the wallet, and the wallet software translates it t= o a specific fee curve used in the series of expiring transactions.=C2=A0 I= n this manner, transactions are never left hanging for days, and probably n= ot even for hours.

-Raystonn

On 8 May 2015 1:17 pm, Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.com> w= rote:
As the author of a = popular SPV wallet, I wanted to weigh in, in support of the Gavin's 20M= b block proposal.

The best argument I've heard again= st raising the limit is that we need fee pressure.=C2=A0 I agree that fee p= ressure is the right way to economize on scarce resources. Placing hard lim= its on block size however is an incredibly disruptive way to go about this,= and will severely negatively impact users' experience.

When users pay too low a fee, they should:

1) See immediate failure as they do now with fees that fail to propagate.<= /div>

2) If the fee lower than it should be but not term= inal, they should see degraded performance, long delays in confirmation, bu= t eventual success. This will encourage them to pay higher fees in future.<= /div>

The worst of all worlds would be to have transacti= ons propagate, hang in limbo for days, and then fail. This is the most impo= rtant scenario to avoid. Increasing the 1Mb block size limit I think is the= simplest way to avoid this least desirable scenario for the immediate futu= re.

We can play around with improved transaction s= election for blocks and encourage miners to adopt it to discourage low fees= and create fee pressure. These could involve hybrid priority/fee selection= so low fee transactions see degraded performance instead of failure. This = would be the conservative low risk approach.

Aaron Voisine
co-founder an= d CEO
breadwallet.c= om

----------------------------------------------------= --------------------------
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
= _______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0Damian Gomez = <dgomez1092@gm= ail.com>
To:=C2=A0bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc:=C2=A0
Date:=C2=A0Fri, 8 May 2015 14:04:10 -0700
Subject:=C2= =A0Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase (Raystonn)
Hello,=C2=A0

I was reading some of the thread but c= an't say I read the entire thing.=C2=A0

I thin= k that it is realistic to cinsider a nlock sixe of 20MB for any block txn t= o occur. THis is an enormous amount of data (relatively for a netwkrk) in w= hich the avergage rate of 10tps over 10 miniutes would allow for fewasible = transformation of data at this curent point in time.

Though I do not see what extra hash information would be stored in the o= verall ecosystem as we begin to describe what the scripts that are atacrhed= tp the blockchain would carry,=C2=A0

I'd ther= efore think that for the remainder of this year that it is possible to have= a block chain within 200 - 300 bytes that is more charatereistic of some f= easible attempts at attaching nuanced data in order to keep propliifc the b= lockchain but have these identifiers be integral OPSIg of the the entiore b= lock. THe reasoning behind this has to do with encryption standards that ca= n be added toe a chain such as th DH algoritnm keys that would allow for a = higher integrity level withinin the system as it is. Cutrent;y tyh prootocl= oomnly controls for the amount of transactions through if TxnOut script an= d the publin key coming form teh lcoation of the proof-of-work. Form this t= hen I think that a rate of higher than then current standard of 92bytes all= ows for GPUS ie CUDA to perfirm its standard operations of =C2=A01216 flops= =C2=A0 in rde rto mechanize a new personal identity within the chain that = also attaches an encrypted instance of a further categorical variable that = we can prsribved to it.=C2=A0

I think with the cur= rent BIP7 prootclol for transactions there is an area of vulnerability for = man-in-the-middle attacks upon request of =C2=A0bitcin to any merchant as i= s. It would contraidct the security of the bitcoin if it was intereceptefd = iand not allowed to reach tthe payment network or if the hash was reveresed= in orfr to change the value it had. Therefore the current best fit block s= ize today is between 200 - 300 bytws (depending on how exciteed we get)



Thanks for letting me j= oin the conversation
I welcomes any vhalleneged and will reply wi= th more research as i figure out what problems are revealed in my current f= ormation of thoughts (sorry for the errors but i am just trying to move for= ward ---> THE DELRERT KEY LITERALLY PREVENTS IT )


_Damian


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0Raystonn <= raystonn@hotmail.= com>
To:=C2=A0Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Cc:=C2=A0Bitcoi= n Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
= Date:=C2=A0Fri, 8 May 2015 14:01:28 -0700
Subject:=C2=A0Re: [Bitcoin-dev= elopment] Block Size Increase

Replace by fee is the bette= r approach.=C2=A0 It will ultimately replace zombie transactions (due to in= sufficient fee) with potentially much higher fees as the feature takes hold= in wallets throughout the network, and fee competition increases.=C2=A0 Ho= wever, this does not fix the problem of low tps.=C2=A0 In fact, as blocks f= ill it could make the problem worse.=C2=A0 This feature means more transact= ions after all.=C2=A0 So I would expect huge fee spikes, or a return to zom= bie transactions if fee caps are implemented by wallets.

-Raystonn

On 8 May 2015 1:55 pm, Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org<= /a>> wrote:
The proble= ms with that are larger than time being unreliable. It is no longer reorg-s= afe as transactions can expire in the course of a reorg and any transaction= built on the now expired transaction is invalidated.

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Raystonn <raystonn@hotmail.com>= wrote:
Replace by fee is what I was referencing.=C2=A0= End-users interpret the old transaction as expired.=C2=A0 Hence the nomenc= lature.=C2=A0 An alternative is a new feature that operates in the reverse = of time lock, expiring a transaction after a specific time.=C2=A0 But time = is a bit unreliable in the blockchain

----------------------------------------------------= --------------------------
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
= _______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment




--f46d0438921751992f05159ad62d--