Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fraud proofs for block size/weight

It works today and can be used to prove exact size: the key observation is that all you need to show the length and hash of a transaction is the final SHA256 midstate and chunk (max 64 bytes). It also uses the observation that a valid transaction must be at least 60 bytes long for compression

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fraud proofs for block size/weight

Some questions: Does this require information to be added to blocks, or can it work today on the existing format? Does this count number of transactions or their total length? The block limit is in bytes rather than number of transactions, but transaction number can be a reasonable proxy if you

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Inquiry: Transaction Tiering

Hi Tim, After writing this I figured that it was probably not evident at first sight as the concept may be quite novel. The physical location of the "miner" is indeed irrelevant, I am referring to the digital location. Bitcoins blockchain is a digital location or better digital "space". As far as

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Malice Reactive Proof of Work Additions (MR POWA): Protecting Bitcoin from malicious miners

> Chain work currently means the expected number of sha256d evaluations needed > to build a chain. Given that these hash functions are not equally hard, what > should the new definition of chain work be? They're not equally hard, but they can be equally relative. If you had 4 proofs of work

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Malice Reactive Proof of Work Additions (MR POWA): Protecting Bitcoin from malicious miners

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:47 AM John Hardy wrote: > By doing this you're significantly changing the economic incentives behind bitcoin mining. How can you reliably invest in hardware if you have no idea when or if your profitability is going to be cut by 50-75% based on a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Requirement for pseudonymous BIP submissions

If this was in place I would contribute more and I wouldn't have to create throw-away accounts. This is not a space where you want to be a recognisable target. Today, BitFury's CEO threatened to sue developers if they didn't kowtow to his demands to leave the PoW alone. This is unacceptable.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Requirement for pseudonymous BIP submissions

> On Mar 19, 2017, at 7:00 AM, bitcoin-dev-requ...@lists.linuxfoundation.org > wrote: > > GitHub doesn't allow people to have multiple accounts last I checked. GitHub doesn’t allow email addresses to have multiple accounts. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing

[bitcoin-dev] Fraud proofs for block size/weight

Despite the generalised case of fraud proofs being likely impossible, there have recently been regular active proposals of miners attacking with simply oversized blocks in an attempt to force a hardfork. This specific attack can be proven, and reliably so, since the proof cannot be broken