John Tromp [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2019-09-19 to 2023-06-03
💬 Posted a total of 12 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: bitcoin-dev, Lightning-dev
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-08-22 16:20:56

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2023-08-21
🗒️ Summary of this message: Banning arbitrary data will lead to encoding data within public keys, making it indistinguishable and difficult to detect. Mimblewimble protocol already prevents spam encoding.
📝 Original message:
> If we ban "arbitrary data", however you want to define it, then actors will
> simply respond by encoding their data within sets of public keys. Public
> key data is indistinguishable from random data, and, unless we are willing
> to pad the blockchain with proof of knowledge of secret keys, there will be
> no way to tell a priori whether a given public key is really a public key
> or whether it is encoding an inscription or some other data.
Note that in the Mimblewimble protocol, range proofs already prove
knowledge of blinding factor in Pedersen commitments, and thus no
additional padding is needed there to prevent the encoding of spam
into cryptographic material. This makes pure MW blockchains the most
inscription/spam resistant [1].
[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5437464.msg61980991#msg61980991

2023-06-08 01:22:05

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2023-06-03
🗒️ Summary of this message: White paper proposing Bitcoin PoW anchoring can be found on GitHub. Questions raised about miner behavior and consensus on protocol reset.
📝 Original message:> The white paper describing the proposal can be found here:
> https://github.com/LNP-BP/layer1/
Some questions about the Bitcoin PoW anchoring:
What if a miner spends the current miner single-use-seal while
creating a commitment, but makes the PMT only partially available, or
entirely unavailable ?
How do other miners reach consensus on whether a protocol reset is
required? It seems impossible to agree on something like PMT
availability (much like mempool contents).

2023-06-08 01:18:07

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2023-01-22
🗒️ Summary of this message: Transaction rewards are currently $63, which is two orders of magnitude higher than typical fees that are usually over $0.50.
📝 Original message:> Right now the total reward per transaction is $63, three orders of magnitude
> higher than typical fees.
No need to exaggerate; this is only two orders of magnitude higher
than current fees, which are typically over $0.50

2023-06-08 01:11:47

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2022-07-13
📝 Original message:> The emission curve lasts over 100 years because Bitcoin success state requires it to be entrenched globally.
It effectively doesn't. The last 100 years from 2040-2140 only emits a
pittance of about 0.4 of all bitcoin.
What matters for proper distribution is the shape of the emission
curve. If you emit 99% in the first year and 1% in the next 100 years,
your emission "lasts" over 100 years, and you achieve a super low
supply inflation rate immediately after 1 year, but it's obviously a
terrible form of distribution.
This is easy to quantify as the expected time of emission which would
be 0.99 * 0.5yr + 0.01* 51yr = 2 years.
Bitcoin is not much better in that the expected time of emission of an
bitcoin satisfies x = 0.5*2yr + 0.5*(4+x) and thus equals 6 years.
Monero appears much better since its tail emission yields an infinite
expected time of emission, but if we avoid infinities by looking at
just the soft total emission [1], which is all that is emitted before
a 1% yearly inflation, then Monero is seen to actually be a lot worse
than Bitcoin, due to emitting over 40% in its first year and halving
the reward much faster. Ethereum is much worse still with its huge
premine and PoS coins like Algorand are scraping the bottom with their
expected emission time of 0.
There's only one coin whose expected (soft) emission time is larger
than bitcoin's, and it's about an order of magnitude larger, at 50
years.
[1] https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-supply-1169a188d153

2023-06-08 01:11:47

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2022-07-13
📝 Original message:> There's only one coin whose expected (soft) emission time is larger
> than bitcoin's, and it's about an order of magnitude larger, at 50
> years.
Make that two coins. For DOGE it is 33 years.

2023-06-08 01:11:32

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2022-07-10
📝 Original message:A parallel discussion is taking place at
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5405755.0

2023-06-08 01:11:25

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2022-07-09
📝 Original message:> New blog post:
> https://petertodd.org/2022/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationary
A Tail Emission is best described as disinflationary; the yearly
supply inflation steadily decreases toward zero.
> Dogecoin also has a fixed reward
It started out with random rewards up to 1M doge per block, with the
maximum halving every 100K blocks, until the fixed reward of 10K doge
kicked in at height 600K.
> If an existing coin decides to implement tail emission as a means to fund security, choosing an appropriate emission rate is simple: decide on the maximum amount of inflation you are willing to have in the worst case, and set the tail emission accordingly.
Any coin without a premine starts with infinite inflation. Bitcoin in
its first 4 years had yearly inflation rates of inf, 100%, 50%, and
33%. So deciding on a maximum amount of inflation is deciding on a
premine.
While in the long term, a capped supply doesn't meaningfully differ
from un uncapped supply [1], the 21M limit is central to Bitcoin's
identity, and removing this limit results in something that can no
longer be called Bitcoin.
[1] https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-supply-1169a188d153

2023-06-07 20:20:39

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2019-09-19
📝 Original message:> However, I believe that Lightning and similar offchain protocols are **not possible** on MimbleWimble, at least if we want to retain its "magical shrinking blockchain" property.
MimbleWimble can easily incorporate relative lock heights, in addition
to absolute lock heights. Grin and Beam have included the latter since
launch.
Grin's proposal for relative lock heights is at [1] with discussion at [2].
Based on these, Grin also has a rough design for payment channels at [3].
Beam included relative lock heights in its recent HardFork [4] and has
a payment channel design at [5].
regards,
-John
[1] https://github.com/antiochp/grin-rfcs/blob/relative_lock_heights/text/0000-relative-kernels.md
[2] https://github.com/mimblewimble/grin-rfcs/pull/19
[3] https://gist.github.com/antiochp/e54fece52dc408d738bf434a14680988
[4] https://github.com/BeamMW/beam/releases/tag/beam-3.0.5654
[5] https://docs.beam.mw/laser_beam.pdf