[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] BitGo's Jameson Lopp Departs for Casa, a Wallet Play for the Bitcoin Rich
The following post by apollyonnn is being replicated because the post has been silently greylisted(for 19.2 hours). (It was approved by the mods at: 2018-03-04T13:33:35.000Z) The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link: np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/81qqkw The original post's content was as follows:
Usually, bull markets attract a lot of new investors - although speculators should be the right word here - and as usual, a lot of them are going to be crushed a way or another. First, before putting a single dollar, euro or whatever in the market, you should read a lot to know exactly what you're looking for. Are you here for the tech and/or the cypherpunk ethos ? Great, there's lot of resources out there (my links are cleaned but as always, do your due diligence) :
The Bitcoin Whitepaper, the one and only : bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf Since I'm linking to bitcoin.org, friendly reminder to avoid bitcoin.com, owned by a former supporter now con-artist Roger Ver.
Andreas Antonopoulos website : https://aantonop.com Andreas is one of best guys able to educate on bitcoin and its properties, for free, which helps.
Jameson Lopp website : lopp.net Jameson is a member of Bitcoin Core, cypherpunk, also able to educate a lot. His website is full of free resources and other links. You'll have a lot to read.
Hal Finney : he's unfortunately dead but I would advise to read about Hal Finney, the first to receive bitcoin Satoshi. A great cryptographer, the inventor of the first reusable PoW and one of the first bitcoin supporters. You'll be able to find his messages on this old forum Bitcoin Talk, by the way you'll be able to find the first chats about bitcoin on this forum bitcointalk.org
Monero website : getmonero.org Yep, I know it's gonna be controversial to post an altcoin link but personally, I think that Monero (aka XMR) is the only other coin with a big cypherpunk community, decentralized, and able to help newcomers with a great sense of responsibility, since the ethos here is to save privacy.
What Bitcoin Did : of course, Peter is controversial but I love him and I find his former blog and his podcasts very needed because he doesn't oversell himself. Pete knows that he's not a tech guy (like many of us) and just wants to spread the word, I think he does a good job with this.
Now, you've read and you want to put some skin in the game. Several exchanges are acceptable, a lot of aren't, be careful and assume that none really are (know that I won't post any ref links) :
to me, the best, although it's UI is quite old : Kraken €/$/pound/swiss franc on-off ramp
Coinbase and Coinbase Pro Difficult not to mention Coinbase, although I can't stand Brian Armstrong and the way they are doing their best to support scams currently. You should rather use Coinbase Pro if you have to since the fees are much lower.
Binance Binance came later than the previous ones but has managed to take most of the market. Now, you should remember what I said about being careful.
Huobi The biggest chinese exchange and they work closely with chinese official. Again, careful.
Bittrex Once at the top, now somewhere in the limbs.
A lot of new comers came recently like btse, ftx, feel free to try them while always keeping in mind that once your money is on exchanges, it's not yours anymore.
This was for centralized exchanges aka CEX. Talking about custodial, you'll need wallets to store your (bit)coins. Always try to use non-custodial wallets, which means wallets that give you your private keys. This way, if the software goes down, you can always retreive your money. Now, I won't link to all the existing wallets but will advise you to buy hardware wallets (trezor or ledger but there are others) or to create (on off-gap computers) paper wallets you're able to store safely (against all risks, not only robbery but housefire). You also could use your memory with brain wallets but, my gosh, I wouldn't trust myself. For Bitcoin (or even Litecoin), Electrum software can do a good job (but save your keys). AGAIN, DON'T KEEP YOUR SAVINGS ON AN EXCHANGE Now, about trading : it's been repeated and repeated but don't chase pumps and altcoins. Yep, it's probably the fastest way to make money. It's also the fastest to lose it. I won't lie : I made good money during the 2017-bullrun and I took profits but I also forgot to sell some shitcoins thinking it would keep going up, now I'm still holding these bags (although I don't really care). I know that a lot forgot to take profits. Take profits, always take profits, whatever your strategy is. Don't fall for people trying to sell you their bags, for ICOs trying to sell you a product which isn't released yet and obviously, don't fall for people asking for your private key. Also, know that there's two endgames : accumulating bitcoin or fiat. I'm rather in the first team but whatever your strategy is, take profits. (Yes, I know, some will say accumulating ethereum or something else). It's true that a lot of ethereum holders made a lot of money during the last bullrun (ethereum helped me make money too) but I'm really biased in favor of bitcoin (and monero). So, pick your coin but again, do your due diligence. A lot of people here or there will talk about the best tech, the fact that bitcoin is old and slow. I would need another post to go further on this point but know that a lof of air flight systems are old too but reliable. Trustless and reliable is the point here. This is the post from someone who bought bitcoin seven or six years ago, who lost part of them, who spent part of them (but don't regret this at all), who is still learning and I hope it will help others, although it would need a book to be complete.
Bitcoin hardware devices need to improve to handle complex transactions
This post was originally published on this siteThis post was originally published on this site Jameson Lopp, co-founder and CTO of Casa, a crypto custody firm has released a test result report on Bitcoin multi-signature hardware signing performance on the Casa blog on Sep. 13. The result shows that hardware crypto wallet devices can handle small, simple transactions well. However, they have […]
Bitfinex completed the largest transaction in the history of Bitcoin for $1.1 billion for $0.70 commission.
On Friday, a transaction worth over $1.1 bln was recorded at the Bitcoin Block Chain for 161,500 BTCs. The processing fee was only $0.70. This transaction turned out to be the largest in dollar terms for the whole time of the cryptographic currency existence. Subsequently, the technical director of Bitfinex Paolo Ardoino said that the transaction belongs to his company. "We added 15k to the hot wallet and sent the rest back," he wrote. The same information is confirmed by the data in the block office. 15,000 BTC went into Bitfinex's hot wallet, while 146,500 returned to the original address. A week earlier, Xapo's crypto-castodial service had moved 100,000 BTCs, or $633 million at the rate at that time, paying $0.26 for processing. In both cases, the commission was only a small fraction of what it would have been if it had moved such amounts through traditional services. Thus, the TransferWise money transfer service charges for the maximum allowed transaction of $1 million over $3,600 commission and processes it within three days. "Yes, the commission was less than a dollar, but the real cost is that you have to buy new pants after sending a $1.1 billion irrevocable transaction," writes bitcoin enthusiast Kyle Torpy. The Bitfinex transfer surpassed the previous record bitcoin transaction of $1 billion recorded in September 2019. The largest number of Bitcoins - 500,000 - was transferred at one time in November 2011, but they were worth only $1.32 million at the time. Jameson Lopp, Casa's technical director of custodial services, said meanwhile, that this week they had sent the bitcoins through a blockage to 550 users for a commission of $1.23 or $0.002 per recipient. "I am amazed at what can be achieved without being time-consuming and with a healthy respect for space constraints in the blocks," he writes.
Lastupdated2018-01-29 This post is a collaboration with the Bitcoin community to create a one-stop source for Lightning Network information. There are still questions in the FAQ that are unanswered, if you know the answer and can provide a source please do so!
Lightning Network White Paper - The protocol has changed since this original paper, but covers the mid-level mechanics of the Lightning Network with an emphasis on the smart contracts that make it trustless
If you can answer please PM me and include source if possible. Feel free to help keep these answers up to date and as brief but correct as possible
Is Lightning Bitcoin?
Yes. You pick a peer and after some setup, create a bitcoin transaction to fund the lightning channel; it’ll then take another transaction to close it and release your funds. You and your peer always hold a bitcoin transaction to get your funds whenever you want: just broadcast to the blockchain like normal. In other words, you and your peer create a shared account, and then use Lightning to securely negotiate who gets how much from that shared account, without waiting for the bitcoin blockchain.
Is the Lightning Network open source?
Yes, Lightning is open source. Anyone can review the code (in the same way as the bitcoin code)
Who owns and controls the Lightning Network?
Similar to the bitcoin network, no one will ever own or control the Lightning Network. The code is open source and free for anyone to download and review. Anyone can run a node and be part of the network.
I’ve heard that Lightning transactions are happening “off-chain”…Does that mean that my bitcoin will be removed from the blockchain?
No, your bitcoin will never leave the blockchain. Instead your bitcoin will be held in a multi-signature address as long as your channel stays open. When the channel is closed; the final transaction will be added to the blockchain. “Off-chain” is not a perfect term, but it is used due to the fact that the transfer of ownership is no longer reflected on the blockchain until the channel is closed.
Do I need a constant connection to run a lightning node?
Not necessarily, Example: A and B have a channel. 1 BTC each. A sends B 0.5 BTC. B sends back 0.25 BTC. Balance should be A = 0.75, B = 1.25. If A gets disconnected, B can publish the first Tx where the balance was A = 0.5 and B = 1.5. If the node B does in fact attempt to cheat by publishing an old state (such as the A=0.5 and B=1.5 state), this cheat can then be detected on-chain and used to steal the cheaters funds, i.e., A can see the closing transaction, notice it's an old one and grab all funds in the channel (A=2, B=0). The time that A has in order to react to the cheating counterparty is given by the CheckLockTimeVerify (CLTV) in the cheating transaction, which is adjustable. So if A foresees that it'll be able to check in about once every 24 hours it'll require that the CLTV is at least that large, if it's once a week then that's fine too. You definitely do not need to be online and watching the chain 24/7, just make sure to check in once in a while before the CLTV expires. Alternatively you can outsource the watch duties, in order to keep the CLTV timeouts low. This can be achieved both with trusted third parties or untrusted ones (watchtowers). In the case of a unilateral close, e.g., you just go offline and never come back, the other endpoint will have to wait for that timeout to expire to get its funds back. So peers might not accept channels with extremely high CLTV timeouts. -- Source
What Are Lightning’s Advantages?
Tiny payments are possible: since fees are proportional to the payment amount, you can pay a fraction of a cent; accounting is even done in thousandths of a satoshi. Payments are settled instantly: the money is sent in the time it takes to cross the network to your destination and back, typically a fraction of a second.
Does Lightning require Segregated Witness?
Yes, but not in theory. You could make a poorer lightning network without it, which has higher risks when establishing channels (you might have to wait a month if things go wrong!), has limited channel lifetime, longer minimum payment expiry times on each hop, is less efficient and has less robust outsourcing. The entire spec as written today assumes segregated witness, as it solves all these problems.
Can I Send Funds From Lightning to a Normal Bitcoin Address?
No, for now. For the first version of the protocol, if you wanted to send a normal bitcoin transaction using your channel, you have to close it, send the funds, then reopen the channel (3 transactions). In future versions, you and your peer would agree to spend out of your lightning channel funds just like a normal bitcoin payment, allowing you to use your lightning wallet like a normal bitcoin wallet.
Can I Make Money Running a Lightning Node?
Not really. Anyone can set up a node, and so it’s a race to the bottom on fees. In practice, we may see the network use a nominal fee and not change very much, which only provides an incremental incentive to route on a node you’re going to use yourself, and not enough to run one merely for fees. Having clients use criteria other than fees (e.g. randomness, diversity) in route selection will also help this.
What is the release date for Lightning on Mainnet?
Would there be any KYC/AML issues with certain nodes?
Nope, because there is no custody ever involved. It's just like forwarding packets. -- Source
What is the delay time for the recipient of a transaction receiving confirmation?
Furthermore, the Lightning Network scales not with the transaction throughput of the underlying blockchain, but with modern data processing and latency limits - payments can be made nearly as quickly as packets can be sent. -- Source
How does the lightning network prevent centralization?
How would the lightning network work between exchanges?
Each exchange will get to decide and need to implement the software into their system, but some ideas have been outlined here: Google Doc - Lightning Exchanges Note that by virtue of the usual benefits of cost-less, instantaneous transactions, lightning will make arbitrage between exchanges much more efficient and thus lead to consistent pricing across exchange that adopt it. -- Source
How do lightning nodes find other lightning nodes?
Does every user need to store the state of the complete Lightning Network?
According to Rusty's calculations we should be able to store 1 million nodes in about 100 MB, so that should work even for mobile phones. Beyond that we have some proposals ready to lighten the load on endpoints, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. -- Source
Would I need to download the complete state every time I open the App and make a payment?
No you'd remember the information from the last time you started the app and only sync the differences. This is not yet implemented, but it shouldn't be too hard to get a preliminary protocol working if that turns out to be a problem. -- Source
What needs to happen for the Lightning Network to be deployed and what can I do as a user to help?
Lightning is based on participants in the network running lightning node software that enables them to interact with other nodes. This does not require being a full bitcoin node, but you will have to run "lnd", "eclair", or one of the other node softwares listed above. All lightning wallets have node software integrated into them, because that is necessary to create payment channels and conduct payments on the network, but you can also intentionally run lnd or similar for public benefit - e.g. you can hold open payment channels or channels with higher volume, than you need for your own transactions. You would be compensated in modest fees by those who transact across your node with multi-hop payments. -- Source
Is there anyway for someone who isn't a developer to meaningfully contribute?
Sure, you can help write up educational material. You can learn and read more about the tech at http://dev.lightning.community/resources. You can test the various desktop and mobile apps out there (Lightning Desktop, Zap, Eclair apps). -- Source
Do I need to be a miner to be a Lightning Network node?
Do I need to run a full Bitcoin node to run a lightning node?
lit doesn't depend on having your own full node -- it automatically connects to full nodes on the network. -- Source LND uses a light client mode, so it doesn't require a full node. The name of the light client it uses is called neutrino
How does the lightning network stop "Cheating" (Someone broadcasting an old transaction)?
Upon opening a channel, the two endpoints first agree on a reserve value, below which the channel balance may not drop. This is to make sure that both endpoints always have some skin in the game as rustyreddit puts it :-) For a cheat to become worth it, the opponent has to be absolutely sure that you cannot retaliate against him during the timeout. So he has to make sure you never ever get network connectivity during that time. Having someone else also watching for channel closures and notifying you, or releasing a canned retaliation, makes this even harder for the attacker. This is because if he misjudged you being truly offline you can retaliate by grabbing all of its funds. Spotty connections, DDoS, and similar will not provide the attacker the necessary guarantees to make cheating worthwhile. Any form of uncertainty about your online status acts as a deterrent to the other endpoint. -- Source
How many times would someone need to open and close their lightning channels?
You typically want to have more than one channel open at any given time for redundancy's sake. And we imagine open and close will probably be automated for the most part. In fact we already have a feature in LND called autopilot that can automatically open channels for a user. Frequency will depend whether the funds are needed on-chain or more useful on LN. -- Source
Will the lightning network reduce BTC Liquidity due to "locking-up" funds in channels?
When setting up a Lightning Network Node are fees set for the entire node, or each channel when opened?
You don't really set up a "node" in the sense that anyone with more than one channel can automatically be a node and route payments. Fees on LN can be set by the node, and can change dynamically on the network. -- Source
Can Lightning routing fees be changed dynamically, without closing channels?
Yes but it has to be implemented in the Lightning software being used. -- Source
How can you make sure that there will be routes with large enough balances to handle transactions?
You won't have to do anything. With autopilot enabled, it'll automatically open and close channels based on the availability of the network. -- Source
How does the Lightning Network stop flooding nodes (DDoS) with micro transactions? Is this even an issue?
With respect to the price of bitcoin transactions. Roger Ver is lying here. You can go and see what the average fee is and the average fee hasn't come close to 3 dollars. Where he might get this is from his wallet which purposefully has high fees. That's programming he put in and is not reflective of the real world use of Bitcoin. Tone's assessment of the fees is actually accurate.
Bitcoin Cash is not secure. It doesn't have the proper hashrate and since it uses the same algorithm as Bitcoin a far larger network it's inherently vulnerable to 51 % attacks. It recently just went through a reorg carried out by 2 of the large mining pools on Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin Cash proponents claim that unconfirmed transactions are safe. Satoshi never believed unconfirmed transactions were safe for a number of reasons. Despite numerous double spends being executed on the network the proponents continue to make this lie. lightning transactions are cheaper than bitcoin cash. Lightning is suitable for micro transactions (actually less than a satoshi) and they are secure. 99% as secure as bitcoin transactions since it is the Bitcoin blockchain that is behind them. The only issue would be some kind of issue where you couldn't be on the network for an extended period of time and you're connected to a node that tries to steal from you. This will be resolved in the future (also thanks to segwit).
You're really only in complete control of your own money if you run a full node. SPV wallets are great, but you're trusting other nodes. The Eclair wallet is similar to an SPV wallet (uses that same technology) but it is more secure. On Chain SPV wallets you are trusting nodes every transaction. With a SPV/Lightning wallet like Eclair you're only trusting it for 2 transactions per channel and from there you can have many secure transactions. You can also run a full node lightning network as well. It's slightly more cumbersome. Setting up a full node lightning wallet takes 2 times as long as setting up a full node bitcoin wallet because of the extra indexing that is required. It takes roughly the same amount of time to setup a full node bitcoin wallet as it does to do a full node bitcoin cash wallet. Roger isn't comparing apples to apples here. You're not in full control of your money with an SPV wallet using Bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash, but it's a fine solution for most people doing day to day transactions.
Roger always tries to setup his debates in order to win. He typically has easy opponents. The Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash debate comes down to the technicals. If you believe in money owned by the people then look at the technicals you will see that Bitcoin Cash does not provide this as an option. The one time Roger had a debate with a technical person he was dominated it was on the Tom Woods show with Jameson Lopp I believe. Roger's political level debates (where logical fallacies are quite effective) works well because he keeps it about economics "bribing" the people with promises of fast/cheap transactions when in reality he uses half truths to make these claims. There is a lot of money behind the disinformation marketing campaign behind Bitcoin Cash. As evidence I reference the Bitcoin.com wallet which purposefully uses insane fees for Bitcoin to slander Bitcoin. Don't trust me. Look at the fundamentals of Bitcoin and Blockchains in general and you'll see Bitcoin has a great path and excellent development behind it.
Obvious case of Blockstream & Bitcoin Core product placement? (article series on privacy & cryptocurrencies)
In a 4-part series, Eric Wall neatly demonstrates how to do product placement for Blockstream, Bitcoin Core and their affiliates including the usual troupe of BS/Core "experts". Note: "article series by the Human Rights Foundation (HRF) on privacy and cryptocurrency, funded by the Zcash Foundation". Don't get me wrong, there is plenty good information contained in the articles linked below. But the product placement of Bitcoin Core, Lightning, Liquid and "Green", could hardly be more obvious. For an article series "on privacy and cryptocurrencies", there is a heavy focus on BTC except in a single part (III) where the privacy coins Zcash, Monero, Grin and Beam are examined. I recommend you read the articles. Below I've pointed out certain items that are mentioned and linked frequently within each article. Privacy and Cryptocurrency, Part I: How Private is Bitcoin?
block explorer: blockstream.info
website to obtain "full node" software: bitcoin.org
Lightning Network (for future support of Liquid tokens like USDT)
person: Jameson Lopp
person: Matt Odell
As we can see, every article prominently highlights of Blockstream or Bitcoin Core affiliated products, persons or related companies. And every article studiously omits any mention of Bitcoin Cash or any of the privacy technologies built on it (CashShuffle) or in development on it (CashFusion), or the stable coin USDH operating on top of Bitcoin Cash. There are certainly other cryptocurrencies and projects on them which offer privacy features, but are left unexamined in this series (e.g. projects offering privacy on ETH, mixing in Dash, etc) In conclusion the intentions ascribed to the HRF in the first article.
The intention of the Human Rights Foundation is to examine these technologies and elucidate on their potential of bringing economic and political freedom to the individual. While there are many angles in the context of money that are within the scope of such an endeavor, we’ve chosen to focus on the topic of privacy foremost. In that pursuit it’s also clear that the degree to which cryptocurrencies enable privacy is not by any means trivial or binary — it varies greatly depending on the user’s particular choice of core and ancillary technologies and usage patterns, as well as the capabilities and sophistication of the attacker.
[Some Satoshi Roundtable participants] noted that while it’s not too difficult to onboard current bitcoin users to Lightning, explaining Bitcoin and Lightning to someone at the same time can be overwhelming. There seems to be general agreement that if Lightning is to gain mainstream adoption, the concept of channels will need to be abstracted away from the user. Rather, the user should only need to know what the max value is that they can send and receive.
If a channel end-point is down, you can't spend your channel funds on the LN (Lightning Network), so what does the LN wallet tell the user? You have 0.5 LN BTC right now (but you can kinda only can spend 0.3... but that might change any moment. Maybe just try spending all of it and see how it goes.) If there are no hops between you and the payee that have enough liquidity, what does the LN wallet tell the user? You have 0.5 LN BTC right now (buuuut you can kinda only can spend 0.3... well. You can spend all 0.5 but only to some people; 0.3 for others. But... that might change at any moment. Oh! I know what! If you try spending 0.5 BTC and it fails, you could fall back on using a credit card!) If your wallet doesn't have that fancy tech for making a single payment that utilizes funds from all your open channels in a single all-or-nothing transaction, then what does the LN wallet tell the user? You have 0.5 LN BTC right now (buuuut you can only spend up to 0.2 BTC in a single transaction. Also: if you then make a second transaction, just because of the channel configuration you currently have, you can only spend up to 0.1 BTC. But actually; if you make a transaction for 0.1 BTC first, you can then spend up to 0.2 BTC of your 0.4 BTC balance. Also, there was this one time at bandcamp... nevermind) This is not to even mention the fact that the user probably also has a non-LN BTC balance on their wallet. If I could describe the LN UX in one word it would be: unbalanced.
Hi Bitcoiners! I’m back with the 29th monthly Bitcoin news recap. (sorry a bit late this month) For those unfamiliar, each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in Bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best) overview of what happened in bitcoin over the past month. You can see recaps of the previous months on Bitcoinsnippets.com A recap of Bitcoin in May 2019 Adoption
Hi Bitcoiners! I’m back with the fifteenth monthly Bitcoin news recap. For those unfamiliar, each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in Bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best) overview of what happened in bitcoin over the past month. And a lot has happened. It's easy to forget with so much focus on the price. Take a moment and scroll through the list below. You'll find an incredibly eventful month. You can see recaps of the previous months on Bitcoinsnippets.com A recap of Bitcoin in March 2018
Hi Bitcoiners! I’m back with the thirteenth monthly Bitcoin news recap. I must say it's becoming pretty hard to select just 1 or 2 stories per day, too much is going on! For those unfamiliar, each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in Bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best) overview of what happened in the Bitcoin space over the past month. You can see recaps of the previous months on Bitcoinsnippets.com A recap of Bitcoin in January 2018
Believe it or not, nowadays everyone proclaims to be a crypto influencer on Twitter. Even those who barely have any experience in the space, mention “Crypto Proponents/influencer” in their bio! That aside, following genuine crypto influencers on Twitter can be very enlightening. Enlightening because they are people who are actually building the community and are truly influential. 1. Vitalik Buterin Vitalik Buterin, the college dropout who proposed and created Ethereum in 2015, is one of the must-follow Twitter influencers out there. His Twitter handle is: @VitalikButerin 2. Andreas M. Antonopoulos Andreas is the most prolific speaker on the subject of Bitcoin and open-blockchains. His Twitter handle is: @aantonop He tweets mostly on Bitcoin basics, Bitcoin scalability, and scam awareness. What is not to be missed is his unmatched sarcasm. He also tweets well-recorded speeches on Bitcoin and various multi-dimensional insights on the same matter. He does so to spread awareness about the most important invention post the internet – Bitcoin. 3. Charlie Lee Charlie Lee is the creator of the Litecoin cryptocurrency, which is the silver standard in the cryptocurrency space. Lee, who works full time on Litecoin now, is an ex-Director of Engineering at Coinbase. His Twitter handle is: @SatoshiLite Charlie Lee has really accelerated the adoption of segwit not only for Litecoin but for Bitcoin too. His atomic swap pioneering tweets has encouraged the developers around the world. Mostly, he speaks about Bitcoin, scalability, forks, atomic swaps etc. 4. Riccardo Spagni Riccardo is the creator of Monero, the most private and anonymous cryptocurrency right now in the market. If you are searching for someone a great sense of sarcasm and an eye for detail, you should follow Riccardo Spagni on Twitter. His Twitter handle is: @fluffypony His tweets are fun to read and he never shies away from expressing his opinion. Mostly, he tweets about Monero and other private cryptocurrencies but also incorporates the Bitcoin scalability drama. 5. Jameson Lopp If you are searching for intelligent people building something with Bitcoin, your search end here because Jameson Lopp is one of the pioneer cypherpunks who has been working on Bitcoin for years. He is an experienced team member of the BitGo team but recently quit to create his own crypto wallet called Casa. His Twitter handle is: @lopp His tweets target a wide range of audience – from Bitcoin beginners to Bitcoin advanced developers – and the topics range from Bitcoin basics to Lightning networks. He talks about political, social and philosophical angles related to Bitcoin, blockchain, and cryptocurrencies too. 6. Trace Mayer Trace Mayer is a veteran investor in the traditional markets such as gold and was the first blogger who started recommending Bitcoin in early 2011 when it was $0.25 per BTC. Follow him on @TraceMayer Mayer is an entrepreneur, investor, journalist, monetary scientist and ardent defender of the freedom of speech. He holds degrees in accounting and law and has studied Austrian economics focusing on Rothbard and Mises. He mostly tweets about economics surrounding Bitcoin, its comparison with other assets in a broader way, and recently about Mayer Multiple which is an interesting way to derive the right buying time for BTC derived from its 200 days MA. 7. Max Keiser Max Keiser is a bold speaker and proponent of Bitcoin who has been shilling Bitcoin to the masses when it as mere $3 per BTC. He runs a very popular show in RT every week where he talks a great deal about Bitcoin and the cryptocurrency space in general too. If you want to see educational tweets that are also funny, follow him: @maxkeiser Also, he shares his whole theory of how Bitcoin and other cryptos are sucking the economic activity from the traditional markets. He sometimes also tweets about his Bitcoin predictions. Visit BtcNewz for the latest cryptonews.
Hi folks. If you own any cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin you probably know how important it is to have a backup of your seed written down on something that will survive a flood or a house fire. After evaluating current cold storage solutions, I must say I wasn't thoroughly pleased with their quality and design. My thoughts are reflected in Jameson Lopp's tests of various seed backup products. So I decided to create my own. After months of testing I came up with a design that I'm very satisfied with and would like to share it with you.
3mm A-Z letter stamp set made from hardened steel included
capable of storing 24 recovery words + a passphrase, up to 8 characters per word
compatible with Trezor, Ledger, KeepKey, Jaxx, Exodus, Electrum and many more
It is called Coldbit. It's made of thick stainless steel (AISI 304). Instead of assembling the seed letters are stamped onto the plates using the most reliable and bulletproof technique - a hammer and a letter stamp set. They will not scramble even if a heavy log from the roof of your house hits it during a house fire. The steel plates are then bound together using nickel binding posts. I believe this wallet will survive the most catastrophic events. I know that my seed words are safe inside it. I'm planning to launch an online shop in Q4 2018. The prices will be competitive. Initially we'll ship only to EU countries and in Q1 2019 to the rest of the world. Look out for an announcement, I'll include a discount code when we launch. Stay tuned.
Untangling a few things about network consolidation and "too few nodes on the network to serve all users"
I see this mentioned more and more even on this subreddit. The idea is that the network is at risk of having too few nodes running to serve all users and that there needs to be some external motivation to store the blockchain and propagate transactions. Satoshi explained both very early on and throughout his later communications with the community that he expected there to eventually be only a few large hashing nodes incentivized to keep LAN farms of mining equipment or blockchain holding "client nodes", in extension enabling SPV wallets for others through their "client only mode" intended for ordinary users. The key word here is incentivized. Bitcoin relies only on market forces and requires no central planning — external or internal — of the network or prices regarding any of its key functions. He approximated that the network would never reach more than a hundred thousand unidentified nodes, probably less, before it was no longer worth it for more to join in. At this new equilibrium, the network would instead start its consolidation.
The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users.
The common worries over Pools, ASICs and not enough propagating or blockchain storing nodes in the network are thus completely overblown. Satoshi encouraged every step on this ladder of evolution. He mined more than anyone at the time, implemented multi-core mining, helped on gpu-mining and encouraged pooled mining. He even considered dropping the number of nodes on the network drastically by introducing "client only mode" (Simplified Payment Verification) as the standard mode of the Bitcoin reference software. As you would know from carefully reading the whitepaper, SPV was fully capable of being implemented. No extra "fraud proofs" were actually necessary for it, even if they may have helped to increase security. The concept was incredibly simple and only relied on following proof of the longest chain with the most work (Proof of Work) rather than relying on conventional "trust". In may of 2010, Satoshi made it clear again on one of the old forums that
SPV is not implemented yet, and won't be implemented until far in the future, but all the current implementation is designed around supporting it.
Yet again, this makes clear that if someone suggests something like SegWit or any other new technology to be a necessity for Simplified Payment Verification to work, they are not getting the design (the paper) at all. Now, all respect to various individuals like Jameson Lopp, Peter Todd and others on the subjects they generally know well; Code and developer standards. But they are not the engineers of a full blown peer to peer electronic cash system and they lack the economic understanding of how scaling a market based (peacefully hierarchical) system of sound money must work. Further more, which is not in the slightest to suggest that the network would need it, there may still be other businesses than miners that run their own "idle" so called "client nodes" even though they do not mine. This is because large organizations with more frequent payments are likely to seek higher security whenever they can and if the price is right. As it says in the design
Businesses that receive frequent payments will probably still want to run their own nodes for more independent security and quicker verification.
But this is a "probability" and Bitcoin was not made to depend on it at all.
SegWit would make it HARDER FOR YOU TO PROVE YOU OWN YOUR BITCOINS. SegWit deletes the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" - like MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) deleted the "chain of (legal) title" for Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) in the foreclosure fraud / robo-signing fiasco
SegWit is a "clever innovation" brought to you by clueless / corrupt AXA-owned Blockstream devs;
MERS is a "clever innovation" brought to you by reckless / corrupt Wall Street bankers;
SegWit and MERS both work by simply deleting crucial "ownership data" for transactions.
Of course, the "experts" (on Wall Street, and at AXA-owned Blockstream) present MERS and SegWit as "innovations" - as a way to "optimize" and "streamline" vast chains of transactions reflecting ownership and transfer of valuable items (ie, real-estate mortgages, and bitcoins). But, unfortunately, the "brilliant bat-shit insane approach" devised by the "geniuses" behind MERS and SegWit to do this is to simply delete the data which proved ownership and transfer of these items - information which is essential for legal purposes (in the case of mortgages), or security purposes (in the case of bitcoins).
SegWit allows deleting the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" for bitcoins - ie, SegWit supports deleting the cryptographic data specifying "who transmitted what bitcoins to whom" (as originally specified in Satoshi's whitepaper defining Bitcoin);
MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) allowed deleting the "chain of (legal) title" for real-estate mortgages - ie, MERS supported deleting the legal "notes" specifying "who transmitted what mortgages to whom" (as previously tracked by banks / mortgage lenders / originators / notaries / land registries / "cadasters", etc.)
So, the most pernicious aspect of SegWit may be that it encourages deleting all of Bitcoin's cryptographic security data - destroying the "chain of signatures" which (according to the white paper) are what define what a "bitcoin" actually is. Wow, deleting signatures with SegWit sounds bad. Can I avoid SegWit? Yes you can. To guarantee the long-term cryptographic, legal and financial security of your bitcoins:
You should avoid sending / receiving / holding Bitcoins using the dangerous, new "SegWit" addresses. (As far as I understand, "SegWit" bitcoin addresses all start with a "3".)
You should just use safe, "normal" Bitcoin addresses - and avoid using unsafe "SegWit" addresses. (If I understand correctly, all "normal" Bitcoin addresses still start with a "1", while "SegWit" addresses always start with a "3".)
You can also use Bitcoin implementations which encourage using "normal" Bitcoin addresses. (As far as I understand, implementations such as Bitcoin ABC, Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin Classic are being deployed mainly to support "normal", "non-SegWit" Bitcoin addresses - as well as market-based (bigger) blocksizes and (lower) fees.)
You can avoid Bitcoin implementations which require SegWit. (As far as I understand, SegWit2x, UASF/BIP148 are being deployed mainly to support "SegWit" Bitcoin addresses - as well as centrally-planned (smaller) blocksizes and (higher) fees).
MERS = "The dog ate your mortgage's chain of title". SegWit = "The dog ate your bitcoin's chain of signatures."
By deleting / losing the "chain of title" for mortgages stored in the MERS database (in the name of "innovation" and "efficiency" and "optimization" being pushed by "clever" bankers on Wall Street), MERS caused a legal and financial catastrophe for mortgages - by making it impossible to (legally) prove who owns which properties.
By deleting / losing the "chain of signatures" for Bitcoins stored in SegWit addresses (in the name of "innovation" and "efficiency" and "optimization" being pushed by "clever" devs at AXA-owned Blockstream), SegWit could end up causing a financial (and possibly also legal) catastrophe for Bitcoin - by making it impossible (or at least more complicated in many cases) to (cryptographically) prove who owns which bitcoins.
Wall Street-backed MERS = AXA-backed SegWit It is probably no coincidence that:
Clueless, corrupt bankers from Wall Street used MERS to recklessly delete the "chain of (legal) title" for people's mortgages;
And now clueless, corrupt devs from AXA-owned Blockstream want to recklessly use SegWit to delete the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" for people's bitcoins.
by supporting the most ignorant developers and "leaders" (lying Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell and CEO Adam Back, drooling authoritarian idiot Luke-Jr, vandal Peter Todd, etc);
by supporting a massive campaign of propaganda, censorship, and lies (on forums like r\bitcoin and sites like bitcointalk.org - both controlled by the corrupt censor u/Theymos) to try to force SegWit on the Bitcoin community.
Do any Core / Blockstream devs and supporters know about MERS - and recognize its dangerous parallels with SegWit? It would be interesting to hear from some of the "prominent" Core / Blockstream devs and supporters listed below to find out if they are aware of the dangerous similarities between SegWit and MERS:
Luke-Jr u/luke-jr - co-founder of and occasional contractor for Blockstream, in charge of Core's "BIP" numbering process, known for his [delusions] and authoritarianism - and for the messy SegWit-as-a-soft-fork kludge - now leading the brainwashed lemmings and sybils of r\bitcoin off the cliff, with his doomed UASF/BIP148;
Core / Blockstream devs might not know about MERS - but AXAdefinitely does While it is likely that most or all Core / Blockstream devs do not know about the MERS fiasco... ...it is 100% certain that people at AXA (the main owners of Blockstream) do know about MERS. This is because the global financial crisis which started in 2008 was caused by:
CDOs - collateralized debt obligations
MBSs - mortgage-backed securities
MERS - the company / database Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems which "lost" (deleted) millions of people's mortgage notes - leading to "clouded titles" which made possible the wave of foreclosure fraud and robo-signing, which eventually cost the "clever" banks tens of billions of dollars in losses.
Loans originated with MERS as the original mortgagee purport to separate the borrower’s promissory note, which is made payable to the originating lender, from the borrower’s conveyance of a mortgage, which purportedly is granted to MERS. If this separation is legally incorrect - as every state supreme court looking at the issue has agreed - then the security agreements do not name an actual mortgagee or beneficiary. The mortgage industry, however, has premised its proxy recording strategy on this separation, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding that “the note and mortgage are inseparable.” [Compare with the language from Satoshi's whitepaper: "We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures."] If today’s courts take the Carpenter decision at its word, then what do we make of a document purporting to create a mortgage entirely independent of an obligation to pay? If the Supreme Court is right that a “mortgage can have no separate existence” from a promissory note, then a security agreement that purports to grant a mortgage independent of the promissory note attempts to convey something that cannot exist. [...] Many courts have held that a document attempting to convey an interest in realty fails to convey that interest if the document does not name an eligible grantee. Courts around the country have long held that “there must be, in every grant, a grantor, a grantee and a thing granted, and a deed wanting in either essential is absolutely void.”
The parallels between MERS and SegWit are obvious and inescapable.
MERS separated (and eventually deleted) the legal information regarding the "conveyance" (transfer) of ownership of "realty" (real estate)
SegWit segregates (and allows eventually deleting) the cryptographic information regarding the sending and receiving of bitcoins.
Note that I am not arguing here that SegWit could be vulnerable to attacks from a strictly legal perspective. (Although that may be possible to.) I am simply arguing that SegWit, because it encourages deleting the (cryptographic) signature data which defines "bitcoins", could eventually be vulnerable to attacks from a cryptographic perspective. But I heard that SegWit is safe and tested! Yeah, we've heard a lot of lies from Blockstream, for years - and meanwhile, they've only succeeded in destroying Bitcoin's market cap, due to unnecessarily high fees and unnecessarily slow transactions. Now, in response to those legal-based criticisms of SegWit in the article from nChain, several so-called "Bitcoin legal experts" have tried to rebut that those arguments from nChain were somehow "flawed". But if you read the rebuttals of these "Bitcoin legal experts", they sound a lot like the clueless "experts" who were cheerleading MERS for its "efficiency" - and who ended up costing tens billions of dollars in losses when the "chain of title" for mortgages held in the MERS database became "clouded" after all the crucial "ownership data" got deleted in the name of "efficiency" and "optimization". In their attempt to rebut the article by nChain, these so-called "Bitcoin legal experts" use soothing language like "optimization" and "pragmatic" to try to lull you into believing that deleting the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" for your bitcoins will be just as safe as deleting the "chain of (legal) notes" for mortgages: http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-legal-experts-nchain-segwit-criticisms-flawed/ The (unsigned!) article on CoinDesk attempting to rebut Nguyen's article on nChain starts by stating:
Nguyen's criticisms fly in the face of what has emerged as broad support for the network optimization, which has been largely embraced by the network's developers, miners and startups as a pragmatic step forward.
Then it goes on to quote "Bitcoin legal experts" who claim that using SegWit to delete Bitcoin's cryptographic signatures will be just fine:
Marco Santori, a fintech lawyer who leads the blockchain tech team at Cooley LLP, for example, took issue with what he argued was the confused framing of the allegation. Santori told CoinDesk:
"It took the concept of what is a legal contract, and took the position that if you have a blockchain signature it has something to do with a legal contract."
Stephen Palley, counsel at Washington, DC, law firm Anderson Kill, remarked similarly that the argument perhaps put too much weight on the idea that the "signatures" involved in executing transactions on the bitcoin blockchain were or should be equivalent to signatures used in digital documents.
"It elides the distinction between signature and witness data and a digital signature, and they're two different things," Palley said.
"There are other ways to cryptographically prove a transaction is correctly signed other than having a full node," said BitGo engineer Jameson Lopp. "The assumption that if a transaction is in the blockchain, it's probably valid, is a fairly good guarantee." Legal experts asserted that, because of this design, it's possible to prove that the transaction occurred between parties, even if those involved did not store signatures. For this reason, Coin Center director Jerry Brito argued that nChain is overstating the issues that would arise from the absence of this data. "If you have one-time proof that you have the bitcoin, if you don't have it and I have it, logically it was signed over to me. As long as somebody in the world keeps the signature data and it's accessible, it's fine," he said.
There are several things you can notice here:
These so-called "Bitcoin legal experts" are downplaying the importance of signatures in Bitcoin - just like the "experts" behind MERS downplayed the importance of "notes" for mortgages.
Satoshi said that a bitcoin is a "chain of digital signatures" - but these "Bitcoin legal experts" are now blithely asserting that we can simply throw the "chain of digital signatures" in the trash - and we can be "fairly" certain that everything will "probably" be ok.
The "MERS = SegWit" argument which I'm making is not based on interpreting Bitcoin signatures in any legal sense (although some arguments could be made along those lines).
Instead, I'm just arguing that any "ownership database" which deletes its "ownership data" (whether it's MERS or SegWit) is doomed to end in disaster - whether that segregated-and-eventually-deleted "ownership data" is based on law (with MERS), or cryptography (with SegWit).
Who's right - Satoshi or the new "Bitcoin experts"? You can make up your own mind. Personally, I will never send / receive / store large sums of money using any "SegWit" bitcoin addresses. This, is not because of any legal considerations - but simply because I want the full security of "the chain of (cryptographic) signatures" - which, according to the whitepaper, is the very definition of what a bitcoin "is". Here are the words of Satoshi, from the whitepaper, regarding the "chain of digital signatures": https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf
We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures. Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin. A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership.
Does that "chain of digital signatures" sound like something you'd want to throw in the trash??
The "clever devs" from AXA-owned Blockstream (and a handful of so-called "Bitcoin legal experts) say "Trust us, it is safe to delete the chain of signatures proving ownership and transfer of bitcoins". They're pushing "SegWit" - the most radical change in the history of Bitcoin. As I have repeatedly discussed, SegWit weakens Bitcoin's security model.
The people who support Satoshi's original Bitcoin (and clients which continue to implement it: Bitcoin ABC, Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin, Bitcoin Classic - all supporting "Bitcoin Cash" - ie "Bitcoin" without SegWit) say "Trust no one. You should never delete the chain of signatures proving ownership and transfer of your bitcoins."
We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures.
So, according to Satoshi, a "chain of digital signatures" is the very definition of what a bitcoin is.
Meanwhile according to some ignorant / corrupt devs from AXA-owned Blockstream (and a handful of "Bitcoin legal experts") now suddenly it's "probably" "fairly" safe to just throw Satoshi's "chain of digital signatures" in the trash - all in the name of "innovation" and "efficiency" and "optimization" - because they're so very clever.
Who do you think is right? Finally, here's another blatant lie from SegWit supporters (and small-block supporters) Let's consider this other important quote from Satoshi's whitepaper above:
A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership.
Remember, this is what "small blockers" have always been insisting for years. They've constantly been saying that "blocks need to be 1 MB!!1 Waah!1!" - even though several years ago the Cornell study showed that blocks could already be 4 MB, with existing hardware and bandwidth. But small-blockers have always insisted that everyone should store the entire blockchain - so they can verify their own transactions. But hey, wait a minute! Now they turn around and try to get you to use SegWit - which allows deleting the very data which insisted that you should download and save locally to verify your own transactions! So, once again, this exposes the so-called "arguments" of small-blocks supporters as being fake arguments and lies:
On the one hand, they (falsely) claim that small blocks are necessary in order for everyone to be run "full nodes" because (they claim) that's the only way people can personally verify all their own transactions. By the way, there are already several errors here with what they're saying:
Actually "full nodes" is a misnomer (Blockstream propaganda). The correct terminology is "full wallets", because only miners are actually "nodes".
Actually 1 MB "max blocksize" is not necessary for this. The Cornell study showed that we could easily be using 4 MB or 8 MB blocks by now - since, as everyone knows, the average size of most web pages is already over 2 MB, and everyone routinely downloads 2 MB web pages in a matter of seconds, so in 10 minutes you could download - and upload - a lot more than just 2 MB. But whatever.
On the other hand, they support SegWit - and the purpose of SegWit is to allow people to delete the "signature data".
This conflicts with their argument the everyone should personally verify all their own transactions. For example, above, Coin Center director Jerry Brito was saying: "As long as somebody in the world keeps the signature data and it's accessible, it's fine."
So which is it? For years, the "small blockers" told us we needed to all be able to personally verify everything on our own node. And now SegWit supporters are telling us: "Naah - you can just rely on someone else's node."
Plus, while the transactions are still being sent around on the wire, the "signature data" is still there - it's just "segregated" - so you're not getting any savings on bandwidth anyways - you'd only get the savings if you delete the "signature data" from storage.
Storage is cheap and plentiful, it's never been the "bottleneck" in the system. Bandwidth is the main bottleneck - and SegWit doesn't help that at all, because it still transmits all the data.
Conclusion So if you're confused by all the arguments from small-blockers and SegWitters, there's a good reason: their "arguments" are total bullshit and lies. They're attempting to contradict and destroy:
Satoshi's original design of Bitcoin as a "chain of digital signatures":
"We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures. Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin. A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership."
Satoshi's plan for scaling Bitcoin by simply increasing the goddamn blocksize:
Satoshi Nakamoto, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM "It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit / It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete."
The the notorious mortgage database MERS, pushed by clueless and corrupt Wall Street bankers, deleted the "chain of (legal) title" which had been essential to show who conveyed what mortgages to whom - leading to "clouded titles", foreclosure fraud, and robo-signing.
The notorious SegWit soft fork / kludge, pushed by clueless and corrupt AXA-owned Blockstream devs, allows deleting the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" which is essential to show who sent how many bitcoins to whom - which could lead to a catastrophe for people who foolishly use SegWit addresses (which can be avoided: unsafe "SegWit" bitcoin addresses start with a "3" - while safe, "normal" Bitcoin addresses start with a "1").
Stay safe and protect your bitcoin investment: Avoid SegWit transactions.
[See the comments from me directly below for links to several articles on MERS, foreclosure fraud, robo-signing, "clouded title", etc.]
Introduce miner heuristic "Child pays for parent" (like in BTC) to combat the weird cases when transactions with 1000 Gwei stuck in the mempool (because they are dependent via nonce on transaction paying much less and not getting mined).
Gavin put the Yellow Paper under the Creative Commons Free Culture License CC-BY-SA. Yoichi and Nick Savers have been making progress handling the Yellow Paper PRs. There is still the somewhat unresolved issue of what should define the "formal standard" of Ethereum and should an update to the Yellow Paper or another specification be required for every new EIP. This can be discussed in more detail in future meetings when there is greater attendance.
[7:43] 3. EWASM update + update on the following related EIPs.
Greg has been working with Seed (Gitter tag) who is writing an ELM formalization of the EIP. Greg says that there is no formal social process for deciding things like EVM 1.5 implementation so he is not sure if/when it would be implemented. Greg has been working on cleaning up the proposal for those who want to use it. Greg has some ideas around an EVM 3.0 that pulls everything together with transpilation that he hasn't started working on yet and is not sure if he will.
This topic was brought up months ago with mixed commentary. Christian R. says that ECADD and ECMUL were never intended to be used for general purpose cryptography, but rather it was suppose to be used in conjunction with the pairing pre-compiles for a specific curve that is pairing friendly. Christian says that in the past it has been discussed that there must be a very compelling reason for adding a pre-compile to Ethereum. Silur mentioned that the Monero research team is working on a new ring signature (still unnamed) that can be viewed in the Monero repository. The EWASM team may run some tests to compare native running of the pre-compiles vs EWASM. Adding a new pre-compile would only give a constant speed-up or reduction in cost, but if we achieve the same thing in new virtual machine it will give us a constant speed-up for every conceivable routine and allows for building other schemes like Casper and TrueBit. This is easier with Web Assembly because we can use existing C code. For the moment it looks like focusing energy on adding these proposed pre-compiles would not be worth it compared to just waiting for the next VM (likely EWASM) which will allow far more speed-ups across all computational routines.
[37:00] 6. Introduce miner heuristic "Child pays for parent" (like in BTC) to combat the weird cases when transactions with 1000 Gwei stuck in the mempool (because they are dependent via nonce on transaction paying much less and not getting mined).
[Note: I tried my best to cover what was discussed here, but I am not an expert in Ethereum transactions. If you find a mistake please point it out to me. Thanks!] Agenda item brought up to get people's opinion on this topic. Currently in Ethereum there are transactions that are stuck in the mempool for a long time because of the way transaction ordering per account is handled. The nonce of a transaction must be greater than the previous mined transactions (or equal if you are trying to replace a transaction). For example you can't process transaction #27 before transaction #26 has been mined. Many of the stuck transactions are dependent on other transactions that pay a much smaller fee, but are not being mined. It seems people inadvertently send an initial transaction with too small of a fee and then more transactions at a higher nonce with a much higher fee that cannot be processed until the first small fee transaction is processed. Alexey wondered if this may pose an attack vector or if we would get a benefit from implementing "child pays for parent" like Bitcoin does. Peter explained even if you define the max amount of gas your transaction could potentially consume, there is no guarantee it will use that much and we won't know until the transaction is processed (the only guarantee is that 21,000 gas will be consumed - a plain ether transfer). The attack vector example would be someone pushing a transaction that truly consumes 3,000,000 gas and attach a transaction fee of 1 wei and then push another TX that claims to consume 3,000,000 gas but with a transaction fee of 1000gwei. From the outside it looks like I can both can be executed for profit from the miner's perspective, but in reality the 2nd transaction will be processed first and the 1st tx will be long running and indirectly punish the miner. Alexey was concerned about the mempool filling up and impact on clients due to the way nonces are handled. Peter clarified that transactions in the mempool in the go ethereum client only maintains the top 4,000 most expensive transactions. If your cheap transaction gets evicted, the expensive transactions you stacked on top of it get evicted as well because they are no longer executable due to the nonce.
A relay network in general is a group of peers and/or miners who use a peer list to quickly connect to a group of known peers before connecting to (or instead of connecting to) random peers using network discovery. Alexey conjectured that this may create a powerful ring of network players who can share transactions very quickly and hurt the little guys on the outside (hurting the idea of this being a mesh network of peers). Clarifications were made about the issues involving transaction propagation issues with nodes with high transaction throughput such as Infura and Bittrex. Clients suddenly stop pushing transactions or cannot keep up with the blockchain when they are pushing out so many transactions. Hudson will work towards exploring this issue more and connecting the people with the issues with the devs.
Hudson will be working on writing up a starting plan to discuss potential release management issues. BitsBeTripping sent Hudson some good material about project management that he will review and bring to the next meeting. We need to start discussing Constantinople sooner rather than later.
cpp-ethereum - Andrei is working on snapshot imports. Fixes and updates to EVM-C to make EWASM integration easier.
Parity - No one available to give an update.
Harmony - Started to work on Casper implementation and working on performance improvements. There are some unexpected difficulties. Database improvements will come first, then the next release should reduce memory footprint and improving processing speed. No estimates yet on the next release, but database improvements are #1 priority.
ethereum-js - No updates. Entire ethereum-JS team focused on EWASM currently.
pyEVM - No one available to give an update. Piper left a text update: Implementation of full node sync in pyEVM is under way. Stateless client work is ongoing as is implementation of a simplified ethgasstation gas estimation algorithm is in progress for web3.py. Alpha release of pyEVM client is happening soon. Sharding and research development continues.
TurboGeth - Plan is to experiment with optimizations in geth. Analysis to decrease the state size on the disk by decreasing the repetition of hashes in the stored state in ongoing. The goal is to store as much of the state as possible in memory. [1:00:40] discusses this in more detail as well as some stats on full nodes. There is a blog post update
10. Other non-agenda items
[1:05:42] Question: Will we see any scaling improvements from Constantinople?
Answer is no because it potentially includes the first steps of the Casper consensus protocol and some account abstraction EIPs, but both of those do not alleviate scaling issues. Sharding would alleviate some of the issues. We are currently mostly bound by database and processing speed due to the database. Short term there are a lot of client improvements that can be accomplished to improve disk I/O, but long term things like sharding will be necessary. The Eth Research site has a lot of interesting threads about sharding including merkle tree formats to be used and ideas around asynchronous accumulators
Needs to be improved. Hudson and others will work on updating EIP #1 and other improvements in Q1. Nick Savers has been added as an EIP editor. Yoichi has been added as an editor. Both are doing a great job.
Alex Beregszaszi (EWASM/Solidity/ethereumJS), Alex Van de Sande (Mist/Ethereum Wallet), Alexey Akhunov (Turbo Geth), Ben Edgington (Consensys/Pegasys), Casey Detrio (Volunteer), Christian Reitwiessner (cpp-ethereum/Solidity), Daniel Ellison (Consensys/LLL), Greg Colvin (EVM), Hudson Jameson (Ethereum Foundation), Hugo de la Cruz (ethereumJS/EWASM), Jake Lang (EWASM), Jared Wasinger (ethereumJS/EWASM), Martin Becze (EWASM), Mikhail Kalinin (Harmony), Paweł Bylica (cpp-ethereum/EWASM), Péter Szilágyi (geth), Silur (ethereumJS / EWASM)
Lopp weist auch auf Bitcoin-Betrügereien hin, die ebenfalls auf dem Vormarsch sind, da Menschen auf diese Weise Geld verlieren – ebenso wie betrügerische ICOs. Über Bitcoin online zu sprechen, ist ebenfalls etwas, was man vermeiden sollte, und der Leitfaden erwähnt, dass die Verbindung einer Telefonnummer mit Online-Konten zu Hacks führt, die “so häufig vorkommen, dass es nicht ... Recommended Bitcoin Wallets. There are dozens of wallets to choose from when it comes to securing your private keys. Hardware, software, metal, paper, each with their own trade-offs. Remember: if you aren't holding your own private keys, you don't actually own bitcoin - you just own an IOU for BTC! Bitcoin Information & Resources. What is Bitcoin? Bitcoin is a new form of money that is controlled by no one and is developed as an open collaborative project. Below you'll find enough curated educational resources and information about it that you could spend months sifting through them all. Make sure you have a decent understanding of the ... Casa is a company that specialises in security and offers multisig solutions that help robustly secure your bitcoin while retaining custody. In this interview, I talk to Nick Neuman and Jameson Lopp, Casa CEO and CTO. We discuss how to secure your Bitcoin, the types of attacks that you need to be aware of and Casa’s multisig solutions. Peter McCormack, Moderator des „What Bitcoin Did“-Podcasts, erhält in seinem Kampf gegen Craig Wrights Verleumdungsklage starke Unterstützung durch die Krypto-Community. Branchengrößen wie Bitcoin -Entwickler Jameson Lopp, TechCrunch-Gründer Michael Arrington und Kryptoanalytiker Josh Rager schlagen sich in den sozialen Medien auf seine Seite.
How To Protect Your Crypto From Getting Hacked: Jameson lopp
Topics Discussed : 1) What Jameson is Upto & how he got into Bitcoin [ 00:40 ] 2) Getting Crypto used by 'non-technical' people [ 5:15 ] 3) Keeping Funds Safe [ 10:10 ] 4) Fund security for normal ... Welcome to the "Building an Enterprise Grade Bitcoin Wallet" with Jameson Lopp. This presentation was delivered on Wednesday, August 28th 2019. If you've rea... Nick Neuman and Jameson Lopp, CEO and CTO of Casa join me to talk about updates at Casa, the world of multi signature, hardware wallets, personal security and personal data in the age of ... They need to be as confident with their bitcoin wallet as they are with the money in their bank, so we still have a long way to go for that." - Jameson Lopp - Jameson Lopp More: https ... Jameson is a software engineer who became interested in cryptocurrency in 2012. He is the creator of Statoshi, a fork of Bitcoin Core that analyzes statistics of Bitcoin nodes, founder of Mensa's ...