petertodd

61 ms·

631.
by petertodd 12y ago
Why would I want to do that? Remember, I'm just trying to make timelock encryption practical, which means we want a good estimate on what's the fastest implementation of the underlying chain kernel that exists now and will in the
632.
by petertodd 12y ago
For the record, it was your essay which is where I first learned about the idea; I'll add a link to it in the README. My contribution to the idea is only the trick with Bitcoin addresses, and even that Takki deserves co-credit for as w
633.
Timelock: time-release encryption incentivised by Bitcoins(mail-archive.com)
4 points by petertodd 12y ago|0 comments
634.
by petertodd 13y ago
I'm pretty sure I remember either Gregory Maxwell or Andrew Miller suggesting it to me first, and I think it might be the latter's idea originally. (at least in the Bitcoin space) Andrew has done a lot of work on "merkelizing
635.
by petertodd 13y ago
If a crypto-currency PoW is such that ASICs have an enormous advantage, then you're in a situation where just a tiny handful of companies with top-tier chip fabs can control the currency by refusing outright to make the ASICs, or worse
636.
by petertodd 13y ago
It's much more useful to us to watch Dogecoin fork and get more valuable data on how forking events happen to crypto-coins. It's a pity that Dogecoin uses such an out of date codebase - having it more up-to-date would give a nice
637.
by petertodd 13y ago
That's why I specifically said Warren Togami - he's taken over from Charles Lee as the main driver of Litecoin development and has done an excellent job at that.
638.
by petertodd 13y ago
What makes you think those arguments are coming from the good Bitcoin devs/theorists? That community - I'm a part of it - thinks altcoins are valuable testing grounds for ideas and have used Litecoin for testing out new ideas in t
639.
by petertodd 13y ago
Believe me, I know. I've written a few times now to the non-dogecoin communities that attacking dogecoin would just make it stronger; even a successful attack won't do anything because doge doesn't actually need to work to gr
640.
by petertodd 13y ago
There was nothing hard to anticipate about the dogecoin fork; literally hours after the commit making it possible was made I heard from Litecoin/Bitcoin developer Warren Togami among others that the Dogecoin devs were idiots who had ju
641.
by petertodd 13y ago
Yes you can.
642.
by petertodd 13y ago
Git now has the git-annex extension for large files; I use it myself for all my data. http://git-annex.branchable.com/
643.
by petertodd 13y ago
Yes, the strategy works better if you have a lower-latency network at your disposal. What it creates is a winner-take-all situation where the mining pool with the best optimized network, some function of latency-vs-cost, gets a disproportio
644.
by petertodd 13y ago
Nope, I was wrong and misunderstood the attack. (like most people) They would likely make the attack easier to accomplish, rather than less. Unfortunately there's very little we can do to defeat this attack, other than have miners use
645.
by petertodd 13y ago
Reasonable compromise, although they'd have to use that version of the 404 page for any URL that could possibly a repository.
646.
by petertodd 13y ago
It's actually not all that hard and doesn't require timing more precise than a few seconds. You can try it yourself: https://blockchain.info/create-double-spend That site isn't great because it's tricky
647.
by petertodd 13y ago
The most interesting alternative solution right now to make zero-confirmation transaction safe is rather counter-intuitive: "However we can make zero-confirmation transactions safe without complex trusted identity systems, ironically b