pull down to refresh
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @lightcoin OP 14 Jan \ parent \ on: Strata Community Newsletter: Testnet I Progress Updates bitcoin
good bot. unfortunately, nitter cannot render twitter articles
also shared in #848887
I think it is I who should be thanking you for agreeing with me, since it seems that you no longer feel this way:
I dont agree about your replace -- Bitcoin does not link an on-chain address to an off-chain entity.
As long as the meatspace signing part worked
this is the central caveat which makes it the same problem
you cannot assume this part works in either scenario
The point is that discussing how humans exchange human readable addresses between each other is the layer above this problem, and that is the layer in which the DDNS problem exists. So we are discussing very different things here.
No they are not different, it's the same problem. Again:
If you have a secure way to pass someone your address so that they do not send money to the wrong place, then you also have a secure way to pass someone a DDNS name so that they don't go to the wrong website.
Bitcoin does not let me transmit an invalid tx, because it is self contained and must consume an existing output, and send to a new output. The input ScriptSig must be correct as per the bitcoin protocol. DDNS lets me submit any invalid names, be it fake, fraud, phishing, squatting, just plain wrong. There is no way to validate it it in protocol. This is the fundamental difference.
"submitting an invalid name" ("incorrect" is a better term than "invalid" here) is no different than "submitting an incorrect bitcoin address", which the bitcoin protocol will let you do. Address replacement is a well-known attack. See e.g.
if you don't run both at the same time then there is no justice tx risk. but if your node is offline then you cannot respond to cooperative close requests which risks a force close.
it's strange to characterize conservation as a left-wing thing, when it shares the same etymological root as "conservative". anyways, I can't be bothered to assess whether $25 for 10 x 10 area of conservation land (+ management etc) for 30 years is a reasonable deal but unlike your "placebo credit" it's certainly not nothing. so what was actually the point of this writeup?
Just grab an image cloning software like Acronis for example, put the both disks together and start the cloning, sector by sector. Done.
gonna want to be real careful of this with the lightning nodes, so there is no concern about force close or justice transactions. maybe better for a novice to close the channels and reopen them on the new node once it is set up.
Don't worry too much, zero sync is coming https://zerosync.org/
The problem ZeroSync solves is orthogonal to the issue of hard drive space. If someone is worried about hard drive space they can run a pruned node -- the full history and all future blocks are still fully validated, just not stored on the hard drive.
In DDNS one malicious name effects each and every user of the namespace.
I don't see how that is the case, any more than it is for centralized DNS -- I can use DNS just fine even if someone else gets scammed by a phisher or someone else has their domain hijacked. Yes those attacks worry me but only because I am aware of them, most people are not and go about their day just fine even with various attacks happening all the time.
Bitcoin does not link an on-chain address to an off-chain entity
It does, or intends to, a bitcoin address represents "the place to send BTC if you want to send BTC to this off-chain entity". If you have a secure way to pass someone your address so that they do not send money to the wrong place, then you also have a secure way to pass someone a DDNS name so that they don't go to the wrong website.
Is there a typo in the last graphic in your post, which shows an arrow going from
Tx 2 in the mempool to Tx 3 in the block? And same for arrow going from Tx 3 in mempool to Tx 2 in block.Also, although you say you will discuss fee rates in the next article, I think it has to be discussed here, at least so long as you are making claims like "To maximize their revenue, miners prioritize transactions that pay higher fees", which is not true, miners prioritize fee rates, not total fees. This is further confused in the last graphic where it shows a
7000 sats fee tx getting prioritized over 5000 sats and 4000 sats transactions. Strictly speaking the miner would be looking at the fee rate and prioritizing accordingly (knapsack problem aside...)This paper may be of interest: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.03616
I am aware of a few active efforts to decentralize sequencing, see:
In contrast, malicious use of DDNS: Malware command and control server resolution. Phishing attacks exploiting DDNS hosted websites. Registration of fraudulent or offensive names. Name hijacking through outspending legitimate owners. Miners censoring legitimate updates. The consequences of these attacks introduces systemic risk for the entire network. These actions directly undermine the trust and utility of the entire system.
I don't see how these attacks are any worse for DDNS than the equivalent attacks would be for bitcoin:
Malware command and control server resolution.
no different than bitcoin malware on the user's computer that can steal their private key or swap out the destination addresses, etc
Phishing attacks exploiting DDNS hosted websites.
no different than a phishing attack on any website that accepts bitcoin, tricking the user into sending BTC to the wrong place
Registration of fraudulent or offensive names.
what is a "fraudulent name"? and why should I care if "offensive" names are registered?
Name hijacking through outspending legitimate owners.
what DDNS system enables users to hijack names by "outspending legitimate owners"?
Miners censoring legitimate updates.
no different than miners "censoring" any other type of time-sensitive bitcoin transaction
Because DDNS attempts to link on-chain names to off-chain entities without a robust, cryptographic binding, malicious actions against one name can have cascading effects, eroding confidence for all users.
can do a simple find and replace here:
Because bitcoin attempts to link on-chain addresses to off-chain entities without a robust, cryptographic binding, malicious actions against one address can have cascading effects, eroding confidence for all users.
do you see why this critique falls flat?
I have my own reservations with DDNS and have a preferred alternative, namely I think that the squatter problem and the phishing problem (perhaps what you are referring to as "fraudulent names") make pet names better than DDNS. But if we are going to critique DDNS then the arguments should be strong, and if those arguments can be just as strongly applied to bitcoin then perhaps they point to areas of improvement for bitcoin as well.