One aspect of #Bitcoin scaling is channels, e.g. 2-of-2 in Lightning or bigger groups in Lightning channel factories or payment pools.
The trade-off is that you can remain off-chain as long as you interact with the channel members.
02/12
This interactivity is difficult to scale. If 1 person in a channel of 100 people goes offline, the only way to move your money is to go on-chain โ quite the pickle!๐ฅ
Luckily, #statechains provide a non-interactive way to swap out of a channel. No cooperation required!
03/12
Let's say Alice and Bob have a regular Lightning channel...
04/12
They update their balance (the bottom transaction replaces the top transaction).
Now Alice wants to leave the channel, but Bob happens to be offline. Can Alice swap places with Carol, without interacting with Bob?
05/12
We can if Alice was using a statechain!
Everywhere where we once had key A, we now have key S (statechain) and T (transitory key, which is controlled by Alice).
Note: Bob cannot tell the difference between A and ST!
06/12
One more step is required in order to make this more secure. We want the final state to end with Alice being fully in control, so we add one more transaction.
This can be done without the help of Bob.
07/12
Now we can transfer the output to Carol as follows:
- Update the state so the money goes to Carol (see pic)
(Note: Carol has to check all previous states!)
- Give Carol control over the Statechain key (S)
- Hand the Transitory key (T) over to Carol
Bob was not involved!
08/12
For a two-party channel this may not seem huge, but when you have many more users, this becomes increasingly important.
And this is particularly useful when we include channels for which interaction is generally not expected, such as bets! (e.g. Discreet Log Contracts)
09/12
Imagine the following bet:
- Alice goes short BTC/USD with Bob
- Her position is worth $10k and resolves in 30 days
So 30 days from now Alice will receive $10k worth of BTC from Bob (If BTC went up, Bob profits, since he is long).
She essentially has a fiat position.
10/12
Using #statechains, Alice can sell part of her position (or everything) to Carol, without the help of Bob, while the bet is in progress.
Let's say Alice wants to give Carol $1k โ Alice can non-interactively include Carol in the bet, and give her 10% of the bet outcome!
11/12
This type of non-interactive novation makes swapping derivative assets off-chain incredibly flexible.
You can do everything @BitMEX does, but entirely backed by off-chain Bitcoin contracts!
While the statechain and oracle are involved, neither will be aware of your bets.
1/5 On this week's @UnhashedPodcast we talked to @hasufl about his paper on mining security, and it was incredibly insightful. In this thread I will summarize the core of the argument, which will hopefully show you why the full interview (linked at the bottom) is a must-listen!
2/5 The key finding is that the sunk cost of mining -- which is currently about 50% of the expected revenue over a 2 year period -- is what incentivizes miners to behave honestly. They have essentially pre-bought half the BTC they will mine during this period.
3/5 This financially ties miners to the future price of BTC. If malicious miners cause a permanent 10% price drop, they also lose 10% of the value of their pre-bought BTC. This is equivalent to all miners losing a massive 65k BTC (10% of half the BTC that'll be mined in 2 years).
1/9 Blocks WILL be full sooner or later. We're not making smart use of block space, so we're likely to experience a bumpy fee ride until people adjust their behavior. It's human nature to want to deny unpleasant truths, but it's better to be ready. Here's what you need to know๐
2/9 It costs miners virtually nothing to add a transaction. Block space is given to the highest bidder - if nobody bids, it's practically free. If you think mass replicated immutable blockchain data is at least worth something, then it logically follows that blocks WILL be full.
3/9 Full blocks mean transactions will actually cost something, and that's needed. Not only does it replace the block reward, but Bitcoin's censorship resistance depends on it: a censoring 51% attacker gets the FULL block reward, but NONE of the transaction fees it censors.
1/4
Update your @Ledger hardware wallet ASAP if you haven't already! Last month Ledger released v1.5.5, stating that it contained a "critical security fix on the Bitcoin app" ( ledger.fr/2019/01/16/ledโฆ ). I wondered how serious it was, and today I found out the answer...๐ฎ
2/4 @LappoSergey from @MyceliumCom found the bug, with some help from @LeoWandersleb. He quietly released a blog post detailing the bug, and it's VERY serious.
The Ledger can be fooled into sending away ALL funds from ALL your accounts, with NO warning from the device...๐ค
3/4
This is how it can be exploited:
a. The user initiates a payment on malicious software
b. ALL coins get used as inputs
c. The Ledger gets fooled into accepting a malicious change address (this fault behavior is caused by simply leaving the derivation path empty)
...๐ถ
1/6 How full nodes ACTUALLY work. Running a #bitcoin full node means you are FULLY verifying EVERY transaction on the network, PAST and PRESENT. This is crucial for trustlessness: YOU check everything. A lot of alt coin "full" nodes fail to satisfy this definition.
2/6 Full nodes give users FULL control over the network, no matter what miners do. Your full node will ONLY accept a completely VALID blockchain. Hard forks won't affect you unless you explicitly choose to replace your full node software.
3/6 If you don't run a full node, others have CONTROL over you. They can deny you access to the correct blockchain, and force you onto their preferred hard fork. If you can't independently verify whether you sent/received coins, you are POWERLESS.
1/8 Thread on why #bitcoin Soft Forks preserve consensus. Confused why people prefer Soft Forks over Hard Forks? Do Soft Forks somehow seem coercive? Do you feel like Hard Forks aren't such a big deal? Then read this!
2/8 A proper (non-evil) #SoftFork does not negatively impact users that don't upgrade. This is important, because it preserves the consensus we had before the fork. Don't like the changes? Don't upgrade. No harm done.
3/8 "I refuse, because this unfairly gives soft fork proponents more features than me!". This is #HorseTrading and is unhealthy. If one side can get something they want at no cost to you, don't stand in the way. Consensus will and should ignore you.