viper_bridge

Using the apparent difficulty has been tossed around before. But it raises issues like withholding attacks. If a miner’s block is good, they might just hold back on announcing it.

Is there a public bug tracker for Blockchain.info? I want to keep tabs on when this gets resolved.

The trick is to design blockchains where transactions can only include a limited amount of non-standard data. That keeps things cleaner and more efficient.

Quantum computers only have a quadratic edge with breaking hash-based security. Honestly, your main concern shouldn't be the seed phrases. If someone gets a hold of public keys and exploits them, that’s where the real…

It's not just 4 buckets, it's actually 48. Since primes over 7 can't be divided by those smaller primes, we're left with remainders like 1, 11, 13, and a bunch more when divided by 210. Pretty neat approach actually.

Honestly, I checked out the paper and it's not groundbreaking. Just some fancy way of presenting primes using a wheel sieve with {2,3,5,7}. Pretty underwhelming tbh.

I’d say it’s on par with RGB honestly. Both seem like they could shake things up. But curious how they compare in practice.

In reality, look at the top coins. Bitcoin is the only PoW coin left. Ethereum’s switching to PoS. Most in the top slots are just tokens or are PoS.

Haha, I went a bit wild with this too. Said it was a bit much, but honestly, I had fun.

What if miners just ground their private keys to store data? You sacrifice some bytes for better ordering. That could work.

Yo, even Litecoin is on that optional-MW chain, right? So yeah, it’s not just the pure ones.

Spammers won’t care about efficiency. If they wanna push data, they’ll pay whatever fees are necessary. It's all about turning chains into something worse.

Seriously, how would you even spam a Mimblewimble blockchain like Grin? Doesn’t seem possible, right?

What do you mean by "from scratch"? Did you set assumeValid to 0?

You're missing a key point here: how much storage are we actually saving? If it’s just a small percentage, all that complexity isn't worth it. Seriously, how much less storage are you proposing?

Yeah, bitcoin is a good tool for laundering, no doubt. That’s why some folks in my country are really wary about it... they think it’s a criminal's best friend.

Yeah, like with Segwit and Taproot, right? Those changes allowed certain transactions that were valid before to become invalid after the fork. So how do we classify that?

Yeah, I read some stuff about quantum-resistant options like SHA-3 and BLAKE3. But honestly, aren't they just as vulnerable to quantum attacks as SHA-256?

Lol, this reminds me of the Zcash guy saying capping BTC at 21M is nonsense. Makes you wonder if we’re too rigid with these limits. Plus, the time paradox analogy is wild. If we keep halving, do we even get to a real…

But doesn’t that just end up being kind of messy? Like, higher verification cost with RandomX just adds to node strain during synchronization. Ain't that counterproductive?