7d5x9

[7d5x9 @7d5x9]

intellectual dishonesty begins with a nugget of truth. then it blossoms into a most crooked flower

[7d5x9 @7d5x9]

@dlancashi @lclhostresearch what you are describing needs more than covenants. the coinbase is the only tx exempt from spending existing inputs. other txs must reference valid outpoints, and output value cannot exceed the input value. if the coinbase underclaims, that value is burned

[7d5x9 @7d5x9]

@P3b7_ the DKG remains an open problem. but it is not a forgone conclusion that it will remain inefficient as has been previously thought. the bitcoin ecosystem owes it to itself to continue researching these hard problems.

[7d5x9 @7d5x9]

@P3b7_ if lattice is broken, as you noted, it does not cause a systemic risk for bitcoin, only signers can attack one another. this seems like a very reasonable tradeoff for the additional flexibility provided by the scheme.

[7d5x9 @7d5x9]

@xstoicunicornx @darosior @satofishi @A86664949 4/ there are equations where it makes economic sense for a miner to misbehave. we should limit the harm they can cause to the system in those contexts.

[7d5x9 @7d5x9]

@xstoicunicornx @darosior @satofishi @A86664949 3/ we have a diminishing subsidy and low fees. we are not far from a dangerous inflection point where some miners seek out adversarial strategies to protect their revenue streams.

[7d5x9 @7d5x9]

@satofishi @lopp @csuwildcat @CatoTheElder17 @BenJustman 4/ explain why we shouldn't fix any given bug and/or why the proposed fix is suboptimal, and/or why the community should be forced to deploy them individually.

[7d5x9 @7d5x9]

@satofishi @lopp @csuwildcat @CatoTheElder17 @BenJustman 3/ to convince the community of your anti-social stance you'd have to explain why they shouldn't be fixed together other than that they "set a bad precedent" in a circular fashion.

[7d5x9 @7d5x9]

@ercwl @_Checkmatey_ @smeet_bhatt SOTA, in the context you used it, is generally reserved for an hash-based signature that uses a novel hash function, or something like isogeny or lattice schemes

[7d5x9 @7d5x9]

@ercwl @_Checkmatey_ @smeet_bhatt SHRINCS/SHRIMPS both build on battle-tested primitives. Their parameterization and the schemes composed interactions needs to be studied, but your "SOTA" characterization seems misplaced

[7d5x9 @7d5x9]

@hodlonaut for those reading this blog, i encourage you to check out the following thread for some perspective: https://t.co/8USbReKU6V

[7d5x9 @7d5x9]

@giacomozucco i think what's notable about these sort of takedowns is they don't include any material substance. i.e., besides references to the OP_RETURN PR and a sensationalized replay of some ancient history (addrv2), they don't make any comments about the actual *work*

[7d5x9 @7d5x9]

@giacomozucco 4/ i believe that if someone did this sort of work, they would come out the other side with a different perspective: sure, not every PR in core is stellar, but these folks are doing good, hard work. they love what they do and are trying to make bitcoin better.

[7d5x9 @7d5x9]

@giacomozucco 3/ part of the problem is that this is hard. you actually have to review commits, hold context, and study very deeply. you can't just listen to old podcasts and drudge through old tweets.

[7d5x9 @7d5x9]

@LaurentMT @murchandamus @boyacaxa @science_genial @bitschmidty @bitcoinoptech it's both. we think there is an opportunity for upstream changes and in the mean time, we'd like to see more than one network operational. the website's faqs are the best source of truth about this: https://t.co/zVWVoO7zIx