<unnamed>

Public Key

npub12tjaqer27049ejmvf0f3yd7kq6p93gg6ecavgrczge4rlzf59y5q2pye9h

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs99ewsv34086juedkyh5cjxltqdqjc5ydvuwkypupyv63l3y6zj2qpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejszrthwden5te0dehhxtnvdakqz9rhwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjmcll0ygg

Publishing to

nostr.wine

nos.lol

relay.damus.io

Last Notes

2023-06-08 01:11:44 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2022-07-11
📝 Original message:On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 12:26 AM Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> Anyway, designing protocols for "price go up forever" hopium is a bad idea.
>
I'm quite disappointed that this is what you've reduced my argument to. The
price doesn't need hopium; if it stays between where it is now and the all
time high, that is enough to make mining rewards appealing.
Anyway, once the LA dinner rush ends at 8PM it is already noon in Tokyo.
The Pacific is big, but not *that* big.
Certainly we should be designing protocols in anticipation of increased
adoption, and not assuming the world will always be exactly as it is today?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220712/05d46411/attachment.html>

2023-06-08 01:11:44 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2022-07-11
📝 Original message:I think many of these discussions about the loss of the mining reward are
fatally shortsighted.
It's always daytime somewhere--when you talk about volume dropping at
night, that simply means there is not enough activity outside the US. If
Bitcoin continues its rise in price, mining rewards will still be
substantial for decades to come. Given another 10 years, I'm fairly
confident there will be enough adoption worldwide to make mining profitable
around the clock, even if the mining reward were minimal.
James
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 8:19 PM Bram Cohen via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> If transaction fees came in at an even rate over time all at the exact
> same level then they work fine for security, acting similarly to fixed
> block rewards. Unfortunately that isn't how it works in the real world.
> There's a very well established day/night cycle with fees going to zero
> overnight and even longer gaps on weekends and holidays. If in the future
> Bitcoin is entirely dependent on fees for security (scheduled very
> strongly) and this pattern keeps up (overwhelmingly likely) then this is
> going to become a serious problem.
>
> What's likely to happen is that at first there will simply be no or very
> few blocks mined overnight. There are likely to be some, as miners at first
> turn off their mining rigs completely overnight then adopt the more
> sophisticated strategy of waiting until there are enough fees in the
> mempool to warrant attempting to make a block and only then doing it.
> Unfortunately the gaming doesn't end there. Eventually the miners with
> lower costs of operation will figure out that they can collectively reorg
> the last hour (or some time period) of the day overnight and this will be
> profitable. That's likely to cause the miners with more expensive
> operations to stop attempting mining the last hour of the day preemptively.
>
> What happens after that I'm not sure. There are a small enough number of
> miners with a quirky enough distribution of costs of operation and
> profitability that the dynamic is heavily dependent on those specifics, but
> the beginnings of a slippery slope to a mining cabal which reorgs everyone
> else out of existence and eventually 51% attacks the whole thing have
> begun. It even gets worse than that because once there's a cabal
> aggressively reorging anyone else out when they make a block other miners
> will shut down and rapidly lose the ability to quickly spin up again, so
> the threshold needed for that 51% attack will keep going down.
>
> In short, relying completely on transaction fees for security is likely to
> be a disaster. What we can say from existing experience is that having
> transaction fees be about 10% of rewards on average works well. It's enough
> to incentivize collecting fees but not so much that it makes incentives get
> all weird. 90% transaction fees is probably very bad. 50% works but runs
> the risk of spikes getting too high.
>
> There are a few possible approaches to fixes. One would be to drag most of
> east asia eastward to a later time zone thus smoothing out the day/night
> cycle but that's probably unrealistic. Another would be to hard fork in
> fixed rewards in perpetuity, which is slightly less unrealistic but still
> extremely problematic.
>
> Much more actionable are measures which smooth out fees over time. Having
> wallets opportunistically collect their dust during times of low
> transaction fees would help and would save users on fees. Also making UX
> which clarifies when things are likely to take a day or week but that it's
> reliable would be a reasonable thing to do, but users unfortunately are
> very averse to transactions taking a while.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220712/4828c452/attachment-0001.html>

2023-06-08 01:11:17 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2022-07-08
📝 Original message:> What do you do if the "first" word (of 12), happens to be the last word in
> the list alphabetically?
>
That couldn't happen. If one word is the very last from the wordlist, it
would end up at the end of your mnemonic once you rearrange your 12 words
alphabetically.
However!
(@vjudeu) Choosing 11 random words and then sorting them alphabetically
before assigning a checksum would reduce entropy considerably. If you think
about it, to bruteforce the entire keyspace one would only need to come up
with every possible combination of 11 words + 1 checksum. I'm not the best
at napkin math, but I think that leaves you with around 10 trillion
combinations, which would only take a couple months to exhaust with
hardware that can do 1 million guesses per second.
James
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220708/fa49a159/attachment.html>

2023-06-08 01:11:17 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2022-07-09
📝 Original message:Thanks, Zac!
I indeed did get the napkin math very wrong. I now get around 10^30 total
possible phrases, which would take an impossibly long time to brute force.
So, it is less entropy but probably still sufficient for low-stakes usage.
James
On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 10:31 PM Zac Greenwood <zachgrw at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorting a seed alphabetically reduces entropy by ~29 bits.
>
> A 12-word seed has (12, 12) permutations or 479 million, which is ln(469m)
> / ln(2) ~= 29 bits of entropy. Sorting removes this entropy entirely,
> reducing the seed entropy from 128 to 99 bits.
>
> Zac
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 16:09, James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> What do you do if the "first" word (of 12), happens to be the last word
>>> in the list alphabetically?
>>>
>>
>> That couldn't happen. If one word is the very last from the wordlist, it
>> would end up at the end of your mnemonic once you rearrange your 12 words
>> alphabetically.
>>
>> However!
>>
>> (@vjudeu) Choosing 11 random words and then sorting them alphabetically
>> before assigning a checksum would reduce entropy considerably. If you think
>> about it, to bruteforce the entire keyspace one would only need to come up
>> with every possible combination of 11 words + 1 checksum. I'm not the best
>> at napkin math, but I think that leaves you with around 10 trillion
>> combinations, which would only take a couple months to exhaust with
>> hardware that can do 1 million guesses per second.
>>
>>
>> James
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220710/26e276d1/attachment-0001.html>

2023-06-07 20:16:18 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2019-02-04
📝 Original message:James
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 10:27 AM Ryan Havar via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Conveniently a shuffled deck of cards also can serve as a physical backup
> which is easy to hide in plain sight with great plausible deniability.
>
To make sure someone doesn't play with your cards and mix up the order, use
a permanent marker to draw a diagonal line on the side of the deck from
corner to corner. If the cards ever get mixed up, you can put them back in
order by making sure the diagonal line matches up.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20190204/67e4ffe2/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 20:15:51 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2018-12-24
📝 Original message:On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 2:48 PM Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> I don't see very well why it's easier to write n words that you cannot
> choose rather than a 32B BIP32 hex seed, and I have seen many people
> completely lost with their wallets because of this
>
In practice it has quite a few qualities that make it a bit more resilient
for physical (written) storage.
If a few letters of a word get rubbed off or otherwise become illegible, it
is pretty easy for a native speaker to figure out what the word is supposed
to be. Even a non-native speaker could look through the word list and
figure out which word fits. Missing characters in a hex string require more
advanced brute force searching, which the average user isn't capable of.
Additionally, having the bits grouped into words makes a more serious
recovery easier. If you lose one entire word, it can be brute forced in
about 5 minutes on a normal pc, even if you don't know which position the
missing word is in (I have published a tool that does just this:
https://jmacwhyte.github.io/recovery-phrase-recovery). If you are missing
two words, you can brute force it in about a week (napkin math).
If you were missing a random chunk of a hex string, I don't know how you'd
go about brute forcing that in a timely manner.
As an aside, from a UX standpoint we've seen that the 12 words don't *look*
important so people don't take them seriously (and they get lost). A hex
string or equivalent would look more password-y, and therefore would most
likely be better protected by users.
James
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20181225/81287f18/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 19:54:51 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2016-12-18
📝 Original message:Hi All,
I'm coming late to the party. I like the Block75 proposal.
Multiple people have said miners would/could stuff blocks with insincere
transactions to increase the block size, but it was never adequately
explained what they would gain from this. If there aren't enough legitimate
transactions to fill up the block, where do you plan to earn extra income
once the block is bigger?
Miners would be incentivized to include as many legitimate transactions as
possible, but if propagation time is as big an issue as some of you have
said it is, miners would also be incentivized to keep their blocks small
enough to propagate. So why not give them the choice? Once the block size
gets too big to propagate effectively, miners would be naturally
incentivized to limit how much data they put in each block, finding the
perfect balance.
In my opinion, none of the downsides presented so far have been a good
argument. Risk of a 51% attack is not unique to this proposal, saying "we
could also do that with hardcoded limits" doesn't actually point out any
problem with this proposal, and miners already have the ability to add or
withhold transactions from their blocks.
We trust our miners to serve us by acting in their own best interests, and
this proposal simply gives them more options for doing that. If anyone can
make a strong argument against that would earn top marks in a high school
debate class, I'd love to hear it!
James
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 3:23 PM s7r via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Andrew Johnson wrote:
> > "You miss something obvious that makes this attack actually free of cost.
> > Nothing will "cost them more in transaction fees". A miner can create
> > thousands of transactions paying to himself, and not broadcast them to
> > the network, but hold them and include them in the blocks he mines. The
> > fees are collected by him because transactions are included in a block
> > that he mined and the left amount is in another wallet of the same
> > person. Repeat this continuously to fill blocks."
> >
> > This is easily detectable as long as the network isn't heavily
> > partitioned(which is an assumption we make today in order for
> > transaction propagation to work reliably as well as for xThin and
> > CompactBlocks to work effectively to reduce block transmission time).
> > Other miners would have an incentive to intentionally orphan blocks that
> > contained a large number of transactions that their nodes were unaware
> of.
> >
> > I don't think this sort of attack would last long. Even later when
> > subsidies are drastically reduced, you would still lose out on
> > significant genuine fee revenue if your orphan rate increased even
> > 10%(one out of ten of your poison blocks intentionally orphaned by
> > another miner).
> >
>
> I disagree.
>
> I didn't say this is impossible to detect, but it is hard to act against
> it. One miner orphaning the block intentionally is very unlikely if that
> miner acts rationally. It would only make sense if 51% of the hash rate
> would intentionally orphan it. Otherwise the miner who intentionally
> orphans a valid block, let's say block X, has to continue to mine one in
> its place on top of block X-1, and by the time he finds one:
>
> a) his block X' is rejected by other miners because they already have a
> valid block X on top of which they already started to mine;
>
> b) block X+1 was already found and broadcasted, so the miner who
> orphaned X intentionally is on the shorter chain ignored by the network.
>
> So, one miner cannot do anything about it. Even a pool cannot do
> anything about it, because the loss is greater. You need 51% of the hash
> rate to intentionally orphan it, and all the miners forming 51% need to
> be colluding and know for sure that every one will intentionally orphan
> the said block, otherwise there's a huge risk of loss for who does it.
> Nobody would gamble to do this (I am not sure if gambling is the right
> word, since the loss is 100% sure here). But, we are not discussing 51%
> attacks because those are a different topic.
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161218/f08a63d8/attachment-0001.html>

2023-06-07 19:53:09 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2016-08-24
📝 Original message:I've always assumed honeypots were meant to look like regular, yet
poorly-secured, assets. If the intruder could identify this as a honeypot
by the strange setup (presigned, non-standard transactions lying around)
and was aware that the creator intended to doublespend as soon as the
transaction was discovered, wouldn't they instead prefer to not touch
anything and wait for a non-bait target to appear? Is the assumption here
that the intruder wouldn't know this is a honeypot, or that they would know
and it's just assumed that they would rather take their chances on this
instead of causing some other trouble?
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 6:47 PM Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Bitcoin-based honeypots incentivise intruders into revealing the fact they
> have
> broken into a server by allowing them to claim a reward based on secret
> information obtained during the intrusion. Spending a bitcoin can only be
> done
> by publishing data to a public place - the Bitcoin blockchain - allowing
> detection of the intrusion.
>
> The simplest way to achieve this is with one private key per server, with
> each
> server associated with one transaction output spendable by that key.
> However
> this isn't capital efficient if you have multiple servers to protect: if we
> have N servers and P bitcoins that we can afford to lose in the
> compromise, one
> key per server gives the intruder only N/P incentive.
>
> Previously Piete Wuille proposed(1) tree signatures for honeypots, with a
> single txout protected by a 1-N tree of keys, with each server assigned a
> specific key. Unfortunately though, tree signatures aren't yet implemented
> in
> the Bitcoin protocol.
>
> However with a 2-of-2 multisig and the SIGHASH_SINGLE feature we can
> implement
> this functionality with the existing Bitcoin protocol using the following
> script:
>
> 2 <honeypot-pubkey> <distriminator-pubkey> 2 CHECKMULTISIG
>
> The honeypot secret key is shared among all N servers, and left on them.
> The
> distriminator secret key meanwhile is kept secret, however for each server
> a
> unique signature is created with SIGHASH_SINGLE, paying a token amount to a
> notification address. For each individual server a pre-signed signature
> created
> with the distriminator secret key is then left on the associated server
> along
> with the honeypot secret key.
>
> Recall the SIGHASH_SINGLE flag means that the signature only signs a single
> transaction input and transaction output; the transaction is allowed to
> have
> additional inputs and outputs added. This allows the thief to use the
> honeypot
> key to construct a claim transaction with an additional output added that
> pays
> an address that they own with the rest of the funds.
>
> Equally, we could also use SIGHASH_NONE, with the per-server discriminator
> being the K value used in the pre-signed transaction.
>
> Note that Jeff Coleman deserves credit as co-inventor of all the above.
>
>
> Censorship Resistance
> =====================
>
> A potential disadvantage of using non-standard SIGHASH flags is that the
> transactions involved are somewhat unusual, and may be flagged by
> risk analysis at exchanges and the like, a threat to the fungibility of the
> reward.
>
> We can improve on the above concept from Todd/Coleman by using a pre-signed
> standard transaction instead. The pre-signed transaction spends the
> honeypot
> txout to two addresses, a per-server canary address, and a change address.
> The
> private key associated with the change addres is also left on the server,
> and
> the intruder can then spend that change output to finally collect their
> reward.
>
> To any external observer the result looks like two normal transactions
> created
> in the process of someone with a standard wallet sending a small amount of
> funds to an address, followed by sending a larger amount.
>
>
> Doublespending
> ==============
>
> A subtlety in the the two transactions concept is that the intruder doesn't
> have the necessary private keys to modify the first transaction, which
> means
> that the honeypot owner can respond to the compromise by doublespending
> that
> transaction, potentially recovering the honeypot while still learning
> about the
> compromise. While this is possible with all honeypots, if the first
> transaction
> is signed with the opt-in RBF flags, and CPFP-aware transaction
> replacement is
> not implemented by miners, the mechanics are particularly disadvantageous
> to
> the intruder, as the honeypot owner only needs to increase the first
> transaction's fee slightly to have a high chance of recovering their funds.
> With CPFP-aware transaction replacement the intruder could in-turn respond
> with
> a high-fee CPFP second transaction, but currently no such implementation is
> known.
>
>
> Scorched Earth
> ==============
>
> We can use the "scorched earth" concept to improve the credibility of the
> honeypot reward by making it costly for the honeypot owner to doublespend.
> Here
> a second version of the honeypot pre-signed transaction would also be
> provided
> which sepnds the entirety of the honeypot output to fees, and additionally
> spends a second output to fees. An economically rational intruder will
> publish
> the first version, which maximizes the funds they get out of the honeypot.
> If
> the owner tries to dishonestly doublespend, they can respond by publishing
> the
> "scorched earth" transaction, encouraging the honeypot owner's honesty and
> making CPFP-aware transaction replacement irrelevant.
>
> Of course, miner centralization adds complexity to the above: in many
> instances
> honeypot owners and/or intruders will be able to recover funds from
> altruistic
> miners. Equally, the additional complexity may discourage intruders from
> making
> use of the honeypot entirely.
>
> Note that as an implementation consideration CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY can be
> used to
> ensure the honeypot output can only be spent with transaction replacement
> enabled, as CSV requires nSequence to be set in specific ways in any
> transation
> spending the output.
>
>
> References
> ==========
>
> 1) https://blockstream.com/2015/08/24/treesignatures/
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160825/52443c18/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 19:51:26 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2016-06-24
📝 Original message:> Clearly the primary purpose of BIP0075 is to enshrine a DNSSEC protocol
> for giving wallet addresses memorable names.
>
>
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but if you aren't, I don't
think this is an accurate description at all. BIP75 is, at its most
simplest, nothing more than an encrypted/encapsulated version of BIP70. All
we did was make it safe for people to exchange BIP70 messages through an
intermediary.
The only identity information included in BIP75 is the pki_data field,
which wasn't even introduced in BIP75--it was already in BIP70. I'm
guessing Peter would also have us remove BIP70 altogether?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160624/4fda853a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-1.tiff
Type: image/tiff
Size: 10972 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160624/4fda853a/attachment.tiff>

2023-06-07 19:51:21 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2016-06-21
📝 Original message:> Note that "client supplied identification" is being pushed for AML/KYC
> compliance, e.g. Netki's AML/KYC compliance product:
>
>
> http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-identity-company-netki-launch-ssl-certificate-blockchain/
>
> This is an extremely undesirable feature to be baking into standards given
> it's
> negative impact on fungibility and privacy; we should not be adopting
> standards
> with AML/KYC support, for much the same reasons that the W3C should not be
> standardizing DRM.
>
>
KYC isn't the only use case. There are other situations in which you would
want to confirm who is sending you money. Making it *required* would of
course be a horrible idea, but allowing people to identify themselves, in
many cases with an online-only identity that isn't tied to their real world
identity, will be very useful to newly-developing use cases.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160621/6984221f/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 19:51:20 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2016-06-21
📝 Original message:Thanks for starting this discussion, Erik.
> Should this be a new BIP? I know netki's BIP75 is out there - but I think
> it's too specific and too reliant on the domain name system.
>
This is not quite accurate. BIP75 is designed to be independent of any name
resolution system. You could use it with a static URL that you share, for
example, or even use it to implement a mesh-network payment system over
bluetooth. Netki's wallet names do use DNS, but that isn't related to this
discussion.
What BIP75 *does* do is provide a way for a client to get a new payment
address for every payment. I personally think it is better than BIP47 for
the uses you mentioned (subscriptions, etc).
I'm glad you brought up identity methods other than x509. At breadwallet we
are thinking about how to establish the most universal system, and letting
users identify themselves with any of a selection of identity systems is
ideal. I think the pki_data slot should be constantly expanded to allow new
identity types, but they should be explained/standardized in the BIPs that
add them and use universal names. "netki://" wouldn't be appropriate, for
example, if their method is open sourced and possibly used by others--it
should instead be given a product name like "dnswallet://" or something
more clever.
James
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160621/316a6995/attachment.html>