<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1f3znre4hmn4ra7kwlmeu47mhelj3vwrxqjw8dt9cnl6qhuwvdwgsgepw6v

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsyc3f3u6mae637lt80au72ldmulegk8pnqf8rk4juflaqt78xxhygpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsetq5ap

Publishing to

nostr.wine

Last Notes

2023-06-07 18:30:38 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2021-03-06
📝 Original message:Hi,
Given recent discussions around possible cracks to RSA, ECDSA and even sha256 we have been looking at possible options for hardening Bitcoin against those potential attack vectors. While most consider it a low priority, IMO it is better to discuss this issue than ignore it especially given recent developments. Possible solutions may not be quick to implement, test, deploy and prevention is better than the cure.
We humbly present a few seeds of ideas which might be viable defenses. These are not deeply thought out at the technical level but may inspire some useful discussion for a few new BIPs.
We have discussed these ideas in private before submitting to shake out weaknesses. We are aware that the ideas are challenging and probably contentious. We are not seeking didruption. The goal is to defeat potential attacks. Apologies if these ideas are not new and have already been dismissed.
Possible defense strategies:
1. Alternate hashing methods. Not sha256. Exposing them sooner rather than later to enable a smooth transition.
2. Per address seed phrases. In addiition to mulitisig, segwit, P2SH, schnorr, taproot.
3. Removing private keys from a wallet for safe storage in a seperate location.
4. Completely removing wallets from the blockchain for 'absolute' cold storage*. If possible there would no longer be any trace of the wallet or associated addresses. Possibly in combination with the next suggestion.
- Bonus for general maintenance.
5. Burning old coins and generating 'new' coins to 'reset' tx history.
A 'Burn and Reissue' FIFO queue with set miner fees. Satoshis submitted to the queue are permanently 'disabled and no longer in use. Replacement satoshis are added to new blocks and distributed by queue priority. Suggest a set fee to avoid excessively high processessing fees and/or getting stuck in the queue.
* We realise this would require some significant changes that may not be technically possible.
--
Patrick Shirkey
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210306/cb59c212/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 17:49:31 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2016-03-03
📝 Original message:On Thu, March 3, 2016 10:02 am, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:01:36AM -0800, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>> > A 6 month investment with 3 months on the high subsidy and 3 months on
>> low subsidy would not be madeâ€¦
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, this is the essential point. All capital investments are made based
>> on expectations of future returns. To the extent that futures are
>> perfectly knowable, they can be perfectly factored in. This is why
>> inflation in Bitcoin is not a tax, itâ€™s a cost. These step functions
>> are made continuous by their predictability, removing that
>> predictability will make them -- unpredictable.
>
> You know, I do agree with you.
>
> But see, this is one of the reasons why we keep reminding people that
> strictly speaking a hardfork *is* an altcoin, and the altcoin can change
> any rule currently in Bitcoin.
>
> It'd be perfectly reasonable to create an altcoin with a 22-million-coin
> limit and an inflation schedule that had smooth, rather than abrupt,
> drops. It'd also be reasonable to make that altcoin start with the same
> UTXO set as Bitcoin as a means of initial coin distribution.
>
> If miners choose to start mining that altcoin en-mass on the halving,
> all the more power to them. It's our choice whether or not we buy those
> coins. We may choose not to, but if 95% of the hashing power decides to
> go mine something different we have to accept that under our current
> chosen rules confirmations might take a long time.
>
>
> Of course, personally I agree with Gregory Maxwell: this is all fairly
> unlikely to happen, so the discussion is academic. But we'll see.
>
Bitcoin is a success.
The success has forced various hardfork discussions.
Hard forking is contentious. If a softfork cannot be achieved the
alternate to a hardfork is creating a new bitcoin. ex bitcoin 2.0
Similar to silver, gold, palladium, etc...
Bitcoins success partly stems from it's brand awareness. Any new
officially supported bitcoin will also benefit from this brand awareness.
If the market values the new improved bitcoin they will put their money
into it. This doesn't require any consensus.
Let the market decide which option has the most value. If everyone
switches to the new bitcoin then the old bitcoin miners will follow.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd