Re: Bitcoin-development Digest, Vol 48, Issue 41

Re: Bitcoin-development Digest, Vol 48, Issue 41


  2015-05-08 22:12   ` Damian Gomez
  
From: Damian Gomez @ 2015-05-08 22:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 12470 bytes --]

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
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 17013 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-08 22:11 ` Damian Gomez

  2015-05-08 22:13     ` Damian Gomez
  2015-05-09  0:00     ` Damian Gomez
  
From: Damian Gomez @ 2015-05-08 22:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 12952 bytes --]

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
>>
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 17633 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-08 22:12   ` Damian Gomez

  2015-05-09  0:00     ` Damian Gomez
  
From: Damian Gomez @ 2015-05-08 22:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 13327 bytes --]

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Damian Gomez <dgomez1092@gmail•com> 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 <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
>>>
>>>
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 18062 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
From: Raystonn @ 2015-05-08 22:19 UTC ( / )
  To: Damian Gomez;  bitcoin-development
2015-05-08 22:12   ` Damian Gomez
  2015-05-08 22:13     ` Damian Gomez

  2015-05-09  0:42       ` Gregory Maxwell
  
From: Damian Gomez @ 2015-05-09  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 20554 bytes --]

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


/* 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<len/10>::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 <dgomez1092@gmail•com> 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 <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
>>>
>>>
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 33729 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-09  0:00     ` Damian Gomez

  2015-05-09 16:39         ` Peter Todd
  
From: Gregory Maxwell @ 2015-05-09  0:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Damian Gomez;  Bitcoin Development

On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Damian Gomez <dgomez1092@gmail•com> wrote:
>
> ...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)
[snip code]

Intriguing; and certainly a change of the normal pace around here.

> 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.

In these posts I am reminded of and sense some qualitative
similarities with a 2012 proposal by Mr. NASDAQEnema of Bitcointalk
with respect to multigenerational token architectures. In particula,r
your AES ModuleK Hashcodes (especially in light of Winternitz
compression) may constitute an L_2 norm attractor similar to the
motherbase birthpoint metric presented in that prior work.  Rethaw and
I provided a number of points for consideration which may be equally
applicable to your work:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=57253.msg682056#msg682056

Your invocation of emotive packets suggests that you may be a
colleague of Mr. Virtuli Beatnik?  While not (yet) recognized as a
star developer himself; his eloquent language and his mastery of skb
crypto-calculus and differential-kernel number-ontologies demonstrated
in his latest publication ( https://archive.org/details/EtherealVerses
) makes me think that he'd be an ideal collaborator for your work in
this area.



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-09  0:42       ` Gregory Maxwell

  
From: Peter Todd @ 2015-05-09 16:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Gregory Maxwell;  Bitcoin Development, Damian Gomez

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1579 bytes --]

On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 12:42:08AM +0000, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Damian Gomez <dgomez1092@gmail•com> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> In these posts I am reminded of and sense some qualitative
> similarities with a 2012 proposal by Mr. NASDAQEnema of Bitcointalk
> with respect to multigenerational token architectures. In particula,r
> your AES ModuleK Hashcodes (especially in light of Winternitz
> compression) may constitute an L_2 norm attractor similar to the
> motherbase birthpoint metric presented in that prior work.  Rethaw and
> I provided a number of points for consideration which may be equally
> applicable to your work:
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=57253.msg682056#msg682056

Mr Gomez may find my thesis paper on the creation of imitations of
reality with the mathematical technique of Bolshevik Statistics (BS) to
be of aid: https://s3.amazonaws.com/peter.todd/congestion.pdf

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000000b0388c459b9aff8a93d02bbb87aac6d74b65e9faf7e4c9

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]