Share this page!

𝙼𝚞𝚛𝚌𝚑 🥕 Profile picture
Twitter logo
22 Oct, 7 tweets, 2 min read
Mempool depth is still on the rise with all fee bands growing.
If we were headed into a major fee event, the #btc ecosystem would be much better prepared than in 2017. Native segwit is on the verge of wide adoption, opt-in RBF is right there for anyone that wants thrifty quick confirmations, LN maturity is coming along nicely, which…
… could at least serve as a valve for some smaller payments even when Wumbo seems a bit daunting still.

If you aren't working on all of these, you might want to consider to.
The rally slowed down and the mempool cleared down to 20 sats/vB.
Mempool has cleared to 4 sat/vB.
This is just a drill. I repeat, this is just a drill.

You should still work on wallet efficiency, though, because you don't want to be caught with your pants down in the next bull run. 🧐

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with 𝙼𝚞𝚛𝚌𝚑 🥕

𝙼𝚞𝚛𝚌𝚑 🥕 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @murchandamus

𝙼𝚞𝚛𝚌𝚑 🥕 Profile picture
24 Oct
@CryptoStorm3 @ChartsBtc Each transaction offers miners a small amount of bitcoins to incentivize confirmation. Blocks are limited to 4M weight units, so miners cannot include everything that is waiting. Naturally, they choose the transactions that pay the highest fee per weight unit to maximize revenue.
@CryptoStorm3 @ChartsBtc Since a block is limited in size, and the block interval self-regulates to be roughly constant, the throughput of transaction data is limited.
OTOH, the amount of transactions that get submitted to the network is flexible.
@CryptoStorm3 @ChartsBtc Especially, when the price makes big swings, people get excited and want to participate in the market. As a precept in Bitcoin is to be your own bank and control your funds directly, a lot of people do not keep funds on their exchange accounts but in their own wallets.
Read 16 tweets
𝙼𝚞𝚛𝚌𝚑 🥕 Profile picture
23 Mar 19
@giacomozucco @CarstenBKK @BlueDelta0 @StopAndDecrypt Alright, so our threat model is a widespread effort to change the protocol rules with support of a majority hashing attack. Presumably this is incompatible with existing network rules as enforced by fully validating nodes, but compatible with thin clients.
@giacomozucco @CarstenBKK @BlueDelta0 @StopAndDecrypt a) A vast majority of FN oppose this protocol change. Attackers are banned by their peers, blocks don't propagate, most thin clients never see the blocks. Affected scrutinizing thin client discovers changed rules when first valid block is found, if it has at least 1 honest peer.
@giacomozucco @CarstenBKK @BlueDelta0 @StopAndDecrypt b) Significant count of FN support protocol change. FN topology decouples, some Scrutinizing Thin Clients (STC) are eclipsed by attack. STC will at the latest fully validate the first block that includes any transaction that concerns them. 1) Discovers invalid block if rule...
Read 10 tweets
𝙼𝚞𝚛𝚌𝚑 🥕 Profile picture
22 Mar 19
@giacomozucco @CarstenBKK @BlueDelta0 @StopAndDecrypt Maybe I'm missing something, but current thin client implementations either rely on a trusted server or connect to multiple nodes. So, you'd not only need to be served a fake block, but also get verification by other nodes to follow it. That means you need to be sybilled.
@giacomozucco @CarstenBKK @BlueDelta0 @StopAndDecrypt BIP157 done right would first gather multiple filter fingerprints and compare them, then download the full filter if they agree. If they disagree, the would need to be back-off validation procedures. I don't see why such a validation couldn't include parsing the full block.
@giacomozucco @CarstenBKK @BlueDelta0 @StopAndDecrypt Obviously, a thin client doesn't have the full UTXO set, but many other rules could be checked on a single block. This would significantly reduce the attack surface and susceptibility to accepting chain tips with protocol changes.
Read 5 tweets
𝙼𝚞𝚛𝚌𝚑 🥕 Profile picture
12 Jun 18
A Hash-Timelocked-Contract is a conditional payment on a LN channel with two possible outcomes: Either the recipient provides the pre-image corresponding to the Lightning invoice that is being paid and takes the funds, or after the lock times out, the sender takes back the funds.
Ah submarine swap is an on-chain payment that purchases a LN payment: The sender locks funds into a conditional script, where either the swap provider can spend the funds by providing a pre-image, thus proving to have paid the LN invoice, or sender can take it back themselves.
One of the exciting things is that submarine swaps can be created on most cryptocurrencies, even ones that are not compatible with LN directly. This way you can for example offer to pay some forkcoin to get a LN invoice on the Bitcoin LN paid by ANY swap provider trustlessly.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get email notifications when new thread is out from this Author!

Check out other threads from this Author!

Read all threads by @murchandamus