summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/49/d7c183b14d68db1758f9e44b529cef01f04021
blob: d28d8352e436a81a1aa558c7873e6d483a24e3cf (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <dgomez1092@gmail.com>) id 1YqqW1-0002Qu-Sp
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 08 May 2015 22:13:05 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.212.174 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.212.174; envelope-from=dgomez1092@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-wi0-f174.google.com; 
Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com ([209.85.212.174])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1YqqVy-0007mv-P4
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 08 May 2015 22:13:05 +0000
Received: by wizk4 with SMTP id k4so45052175wiz.1
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Fri, 08 May 2015 15:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.89.231 with SMTP id br7mr1647068wib.60.1431123176758;
	Fri, 08 May 2015 15:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.144.68 with HTTP; Fri, 8 May 2015 15:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAH+jCTye9QNVV8bv6ZAgEPcrE5K1J-q7gONE_m1x81+-5mpWHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.63969.1431119326.18600.bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
	<CAH+jCTye9QNVV8bv6ZAgEPcrE5K1J-q7gONE_m1x81+-5mpWHA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 15:12:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CAH+jCTwxjfEVog4JR+8kCvbBPoT50f322NV3T+8Bz-sTnK-yXQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Damian Gomez <dgomez1092@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3ba25594a14605159954a7
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: 1YqqVy-0007mv-P4
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 22:13:05 -0000

--e89a8f3ba25594a14605159954a7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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 <dgomez1092@gmail.com> 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 <mark@friedenbach.org>
>> To: Raystonn <raystonn@hotmail.com>
>> Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
>> 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 <raystonn@hotmail.com> 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 <doug@bitcoinarmory.com>
>> To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
>> 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 <mark@friedenbach.org>
>> To: "Raystonn ." <raystonn@hotmail.com>
>> Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
>> 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 . <raystonn@hotmail.com> 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 <voisine@gmail.com> 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 <dgomez1092@gmail.com>
>> 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 <raystonn@hotmail.com>
>> To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
>> Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
>> 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 <mark@friedenbach.org> 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 <raystonn@hotmail.com> 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
>>
>>
>

--e89a8f3ba25594a14605159954a7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">let me continue my conversation:=C2=A0<div><br></div><div>=
as the development of this transactions would be indiscated=C2=A0</div><div=
><br></div><div>as a ByteArray of=C2=A0</div><div><br></div></div><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 3:1=
1 PM, Damian Gomez <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:dgomez1092@gmail=
.com" target=3D"_blank">dgomez1092@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><bloc=
kquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #cc=
c solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br><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 loss of fee structure theoug=
th the implementation of a this security hash that eill alloow for a one-wy=
a transaction to conitnue, according to the TESLA protocol. =C2=A0</div><di=
v><br></div><div>We can then tally what is needed to compute tteh number of=
 bit desginated for teh completion og the client-side signature if discussi=
n the construcitons of a a DH key (instead of the BIP X509 protocol) =C2=A0=
</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><div class=3D"h5">On =
Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:08 PM,  <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitco=
in-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev=
elopment-request@lists.sourceforge.net</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br></div></div=
><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1=
px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class=3D"h5">Send Bitcoin-develop=
ment mailing list submissions to<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sou=
rceforge.net" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</=
a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/=
listinfo/bitcoin-development" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.n=
et/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body &#39;help&#39; to<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-development-request@l=
ists.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-development-request@lists.s=
ourceforge.net</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-development-owner@lis=
ts.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-development-owner@lists.sourc=
eforge.net</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than &quot;Re: Contents of Bitcoin-development digest...&quot;<br>
<br></div></div>Today&#39;s Topics:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A01. Re: Block Size Increase (Mark Friedenbach)<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A02. Softfork signaling improvements (Douglas Roark)<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A03. Re: Block Size Increase (Mark Friedenbach)<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A04. Re: Block Size Increase (Raystonn) (Damian Gomez)<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A05. Re: Block Size Increase (Raystonn)<br>
<br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From:=C2=A0Mark Friedenb=
ach &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mark@friedenbach.org" target=3D"_blank">mark@frie=
denbach.org</a>&gt;<br>To:=C2=A0Raystonn &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:raystonn@hot=
mail.com" target=3D"_blank">raystonn@hotmail.com</a>&gt;<br>Cc:=C2=A0Bitcoi=
n Development &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.n=
et" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a>&gt;<br>=
Date:=C2=A0Fri, 8 May 2015 13:55:30 -0700<br>Subject:=C2=A0Re: [Bitcoin-dev=
elopment] Block Size Increase<br><div dir=3D"ltr">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><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><=
br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Raystonn <spa=
n dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:raystonn@hotmail.com" target=3D"_blank"=
>raystonn@hotmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_q=
uote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1e=
x">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<br></blockquote></div></div></div></div>
<br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From:=C2=A0Douglas Roark=
 &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:doug@bitcoinarmory.com" target=3D"_blank">doug@bitco=
inarmory.com</a>&gt;<br>To:=C2=A0Bitcoin Dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-=
development@lists.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-development@li=
sts.sourceforge.net</a>&gt;<br>Cc:=C2=A0<br>Date:=C2=A0Fri, 8 May 2015 15:2=
7:26 -0400<br>Subject:=C2=A0[Bitcoin-development] Softfork signaling improv=
ements<br>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA512<br>
<br>
Hello. I&#39;ve seen Greg make a couple of posts online<br>
(<a href=3D"https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D1033396.msg11155302#m=
sg11155302" target=3D"_blank">https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D103=
3396.msg11155302#msg11155302</a><br>
is one such example) where he has mentioned that Pieter has a new<br>
proposal for allowing multiple softforks to be deployed at the same<br>
time. As discussed in the thread I linked, the idea seems simple<br>
enough. Still, I&#39;m curious if the actual proposal has been posted<br>
anywhere. I spent a few minutes searching the usual suspects (this<br>
mailing list, Reddit, Bitcointalk, IRC logs, BIPs) and can&#39;t find<br>
anything.<br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
- ---<br>
Douglas Roark<br>
Senior Developer<br>
Armory Technologies, Inc.<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:doug@bitcoinarmory.com" target=3D"_blank">doug@bitcoinarm=
ory.com</a><br>
PGP key ID: 92ADC0D7<br>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)<br>
Comment: GPGTools - <a href=3D"https://gpgtools.org" target=3D"_blank">http=
s://gpgtools.org</a><br>
<br>
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVTQ4eAAoJEGybVGGSrcDX8eMQAOQiDA7an+qZBqDfVIwEzY2C<br>
SxOVxswwxAyTtZNM/Nm+8MTq77hF8+3j/C3bUbDW6wCu4QxBYA/uiCGTf44dj6WX<br>
7aiXg1o9C4LfPcuUngcMI0H5ixOUxnbqUdmpNdoIvy4did2dVs9fAmOPEoSVUm72<br>
6dMLGrtlPN0jcLX6pJd12Dy3laKxd0AP72wi6SivH6i8v8rLb940EuBS3hIkuZG0<br>
vnR5MXMIEd0rkWesr8hn6oTs/k8t4zgts7cgIrA7rU3wJq0qaHBa8uASUxwHKDjD<br>
KmDwaigvOGN6XqitqokCUlqjoxvwpimCjb3Uv5Pkxn8+dwue9F/IggRXUSuifJRn<br>
UEZT2F8fwhiluldz3sRaNtLOpCoKfPC+YYv7kvGySgqagtNJFHoFhbeQM0S3yjRn<br>
Ceh1xK9sOjrxw/my0jwpjJkqlhvQtVG15OsNWDzZ+eWa56kghnSgLkFO+T4G6IxB<br>
EUOcAYjJkLbg5ssjgyhvDOvGqft+2e4MNlB01e1ZQr4whQH4TdRkd66A4WDNB+0g<br>
LBqVhAc2C8L3g046mhZmC33SuOSxxm8shlxZvYLHU2HrnUFg9NkkXi1Ub7agMSck<br>
TTkLbMx17AvOXkKH0v1L20kWoWAp9LfRGdD+qnY8svJkaUuVtgDurpcwEk40WwEZ<br>
caYBw+8bdLpKZwqbA1DL<br>
=3DayhE<br>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From:=C2=A0Mark Friedenb=
ach &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mark@friedenbach.org" target=3D"_blank">mark@frie=
denbach.org</a>&gt;<br>To:=C2=A0&quot;Raystonn .&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailt=
o:raystonn@hotmail.com" target=3D"_blank">raystonn@hotmail.com</a>&gt;<br>C=
c:=C2=A0Bitcoin Development &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-development@lists=
.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.n=
et</a>&gt;<br>Date:=C2=A0Fri, 8 May 2015 13:40:50 -0700<br>Subject:=C2=A0Re=
: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase<br><div dir=3D"ltr">Transaction=
s don&#39;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.<br><div><div class=3D=
"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:38 PM=
, Raystonn . <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:raystonn@hotmail.com" =
target=3D"_blank">raystonn@hotmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote=
 class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc soli=
d;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr">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.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">-Raystonn<br>
</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 8 May 2015 1:17 pm, Aaron Voisine &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:voisine@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">voisine@gmail.com</a>&gt; w=
rote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border=
-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">As the author of a =
popular SPV wallet, I wanted to weigh in, in support of the Gavin&#39;s 20M=
b block proposal.<div><br></div><div>The best argument I&#39;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&#39; experience.<br><div><br></d=
iv><div>When users pay too low a fee, they should:</div><div><br></div><div=
>1) See immediate failure as they do now with fees that fail to propagate.<=
/div><div><br></div><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><div><br></div><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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br><div><div><div d=
ir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Aaron Voisine</div><div>co-founder an=
d CEO<br><a href=3D"http://breadwallet.com" target=3D"_blank">breadwallet.c=
om</a></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br>----------------------------------------------------=
--------------------------<br>
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud<br=
>
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications<br>
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights<br=
>
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.<br>
<a href=3D"http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y" target=
=3D"_blank">http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y</a><br>=
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_bla=
nk">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
<br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From:=C2=A0Damian Gomez =
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:dgomez1092@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">dgomez1092@gm=
ail.com</a>&gt;<br>To:=C2=A0<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sou=
rceforge.net" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</=
a><br>Cc:=C2=A0<br>Date:=C2=A0Fri, 8 May 2015 14:04:10 -0700<br>Subject:=C2=
=A0Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase (Raystonn)<br><div dir=3D"=
ltr">Hello,=C2=A0<div><br></div><div>I was reading some of the thread but c=
an&#39;t say I read the entire thing.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><d=
iv>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</div><div><br></div><div>I&#39;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</div><div><br></div><div>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)</di=
v><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for letting me j=
oin the conversation</div><div>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 ---&gt; THE DELRERT KEY LITERALLY PREVENTS IT )</div><div><br></div><d=
iv><br></div><div>_Damian</div></div>
<br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From:=C2=A0Raystonn &lt;=
<a href=3D"mailto:raystonn@hotmail.com" target=3D"_blank">raystonn@hotmail.=
com</a>&gt;<br>To:=C2=A0Mark Friedenbach &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mark@frieden=
bach.org" target=3D"_blank">mark@friedenbach.org</a>&gt;<br>Cc:=C2=A0Bitcoi=
n Development &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.n=
et" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a>&gt;<br>=
Date:=C2=A0Fri, 8 May 2015 14:01:28 -0700<br>Subject:=C2=A0Re: [Bitcoin-dev=
elopment] Block Size Increase<br><p dir=3D"ltr">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.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">-Raystonn<br>
</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 8 May 2015 1:55 pm, Mark Friedenbach &lt;<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:mark@friedenbach.org" target=3D"_blank">mark@friedenbach.org<=
/a>&gt; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">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.<br><div><div><br><div=
>On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Raystonn <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"=
mailto:raystonn@hotmail.com" target=3D"_blank">raystonn@hotmail.com</a>&gt;=
</span> wrote:<br><blockquote style=3D"margin:0 0 0 0.8ex;border-left:1px #=
ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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<br></blockquote></div></div></div></d=
iv>
</blockquote></div><br>----------------------------------------------------=
--------------------------<br>
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud<br=
>
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications<br>
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights<br=
>
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.<br>
<a href=3D"http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y" target=
=3D"_blank">http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y</a><br>=
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_bla=
nk">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--e89a8f3ba25594a14605159954a7--