Watch The Grave of The Fireflies was a bad idea.
Studio Ghibli's most sad and boring movie.
This man is Eric Clopper, he lost his job at Harvard to give you this info. Take it. Share it. Sex & Circumcision: An American Love Story
Lol wtf he got fired for this? That was weird, kinda gay, and not very funny, but not at all offensive considering it was a fucking comedy act.
You're just bleating on off on a tangent. You still haven't admitted that deterministic systems are easier to attack. CTO is another attack on the chain's protocol, like Segwit.
No, I'm explaining to you why you are wrong. You just keep repeating yourself, unwilling or unable to address the points I've made.
Ok cool, so you won't prove that determinism is good for a system susceptible to attack. That's fine, I hope you control your own private keys ☮️
be able to deterministic-ally calculate a priv key from a pub key. But tx order is not one of them.
Ok cool, so you won't prove that determinism is good for a system susceptible to attack. That's fine, I hope you control your own private keys ☮️
Determinism is necessary for literally any computer system. There are some parts of encryption (priv/pub keys) where we DON'T want determinism. For example, you shouldn't...
Ok cool, so you won't prove that determinism is good for a system susceptible to attack. That's fine, I hope you control your own private keys ☮️
Yep, the same private keys that are deterministic-ally generated by a pseudo-random computer program, and then deterministic-ally used to calculate a public key and address.
A 32MB block to kick off the hash war! (which by BU 1.5.0.1 handled easily despite Reddit speculation). SV is up big in hash rate!
This should be fun =)
It's got nothing to do with encryption, but everything to do with determinism. And deterministic systems are more susceptible to attack. This is a fact that you have refused to admit.
The universe is deterministic. Bitcoin uses that determinism via of encryption and game theory to work. Read up and stop using buzzwords like you know what you're talking about.
It's got nothing to do with encryption, but everything to do with determinism. And deterministic systems are more susceptible to attack. This is a fact that you have refused to admit.
I'm done arguing with you since you clearly have no idea what you're talking about lol.
You say no but then don't prove it. Every node knows about each tx yes, but not the order they will be blocked. So... With CTO they will, and it is more susceptible to fuckery.
A) verify hash matches the blocks txs B) So the hash can be used to calculate future blockheaders, therefore cryptgrphcly proving the block is built on a valid tx history(merkle tree)
You say no but then don't prove it. Every node knows about each tx yes, but not the order they will be blocked. So... With CTO they will, and it is more susceptible to fuckery.
The entire point of hashing the transactions is so that someone who looks at all the transactions published in that block can easily can quickly:
You say no but then don't prove it. Every node knows about each tx yes, but not the order they will be blocked. So... With CTO they will, and it is more susceptible to fuckery.
knowing the order of txs in a block. That's not how the encryption is used, or even works. Txs are hashed ONLY as part of merkle tree, meaning they only matter for the past blocks.
You say no but then don't prove it. Every node knows about each tx yes, but not the order they will be blocked. So... With CTO they will, and it is more susceptible to fuckery.
No, you are showing a fundamental lack of understanding of the encryption behind bitcoin and the reason txs are hashed in the first place. There is no possible fuckery behind...
Imagine you had a million bitcoins and you believed that their long term value was about to be destroyed forever. How would you feel? What would you do?
Imagine you had 10 million Bitcoins and you thought they were going to fly to the moon? How would you feel? See, I can pose pointless and unfounded hypotheticals as well.
consensus mechanism to prove their existence. Hence why all transactions are also sent totally encrypted in every block as well.
totally unencrypted*
When you can predict, roughly, what data will be transferred every ten minutes it becomes easier to prepare for interception etc. Correct? As I said you'd have to use your imagination.
consensus mechanism to prove their existence. Hence why all transactions are also sent totally encrypted in every block as well.
When you can predict, roughly, what data will be transferred every ten minutes it becomes easier to prepare for interception etc. Correct? As I said you'd have to use your imagination.
No. Every node on the network already knows about every tx. The hash of the transactions does not serve to hide the txs or prevent them from interception. It is used ONLY as a....
Im saying that the ABC devs are basilcaly Core. They will keep coming up with problems and push crippling soluitions that won't fix anything. Just like the last 5 years of Core.
I'm not saying CSW has ulterior/malicious motives, Im just saying I don't understand them, despite having followed the space closely since 2013 and trying hard to see things his way.
Im saying that the ABC devs are basilcaly Core. They will keep coming up with problems and push crippling soluitions that won't fix anything. Just like the last 5 years of Core.
been being discussed since before Blockstream even existed. The radical new problems with no explanation all come from CSW.
Im saying that the ABC devs are basilcaly Core. They will keep coming up with problems and push crippling soluitions that won't fix anything. Just like the last 5 years of Core.
The first time I heard discussion of CTOR (often called GTOR - gavin's transaction ordering, or LTOR back then) YEARS ago... This isn't some new change. Implementing tx ordering has...
Simply put; Its less random. We would have to use our imaginations as to how that might be a vector of attack in the future but it remains that determinism is not good for cryptography
the transactions in that block, not to encrypt the data, but to prove it's existence. So how is the cryptography at all at risk if transactions are ordered a certain way?
Simply put; Its less random. We would have to use our imaginations as to how that might be a vector of attack in the future but it remains that determinism is not good for cryptography
every transaction, what is the cryptographic risk to requiring new blocks to have those transactions ordered in a particular way? Each block header contains a 256-bit hash of all....
Simply put; Its less random. We would have to use our imaginations as to how that might be a vector of attack in the future but it remains that determinism is not good for cryptography
Based on the cryptography involved, I'm not sure how the order of the transactions could provide any sort of attack vector. If the whole network can easily and nearly instantly see...
Canonical ordering increases parsing & verification complexity & when transaction ordering is predetermined the chain is easier attacked.
Yes, it increases verification complexity (slightly), but how does it make it "easier to attack" the chain.
Why is it taking so long to fix the bottlenecks? It's been 8 months.
8 months since... ? These stress test were in the last few months and were our first real chance to see how the network would practically handle such an influx of transactions.
