n0nce
|
|
April 03, 2022, 10:50:25 PM |
|
good i am tired of talking about gas as well....lol....this functionality was realized by hugpuddle.org before #ethereum.. we didn't think that an entirely new class of blockchains or gas was required to do these types of things. we are releasing 0.4.0 this year designed for a larger much less technical audience. (the world) lol
trust is accomplished by signing a hash of the application transactions using bitcoin's or the altcoin's internal signing function and including the signature with the transaction... monitors perform the same function in reverse comparing the hash to the signature and if they match and if the address is a trusted source then the transaction is executed if it's executable......if there is no signature or if the signature doesn't match it is ignored..
<3 #embii
Who decides who's a trusted source? Doesn't sound very 'decentralized' to me. I still like the idea, but if you have an entity that decides who can run a blockchain-'hosted' application on your server (also the very concept that there's a server), it is not decentralized. But just let people upload & download data; they can execute software locally, if they want. I think hosting data is way more useful and needed in a world of censorship, than hosting software and providing a way to run it online, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
embii
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 62
Merit: 6
|
|
April 03, 2022, 10:57:37 PM |
|
you decide who to trust...YOU...only you...an organization could offload some of the trust functionality if you want them to....that choice is up to #you.... this is complete total decentralization. power to the people....
<3 #embii
|
|
|
|
embii
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 62
Merit: 6
|
|
April 03, 2022, 11:02:44 PM |
|
there are no central servers... its just you and the blockchains you choose to support running on your own laptop. apertus.io is not a blockchain..it's just a tiny application that runs on your own laptop.....i have 8 blockchains running on my laptop.
|
|
|
|
embii
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 62
Merit: 6
|
|
April 03, 2022, 11:14:04 PM |
|
with 0.4.0 we are introducing NFT trading capabilities.
you .. yes YOU alone can list and trade NFT's on any compatible blockchain...without any company in the middle taking service fees with each sale.
as a buyer i chose...me...it's my choice.. lol... to trust the NFT Creator's signature..and that's all that is required to ensure the integrity of the object they created as they trade through unlimited amount of owners.
we simply walk a tree of signed transactions... apertus.io 0.4.0 has a very simple realtime state engine that runs on your own laptop that keeps track of this making NFT ownership info and trading history easily query-able
|
|
|
|
embii
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 62
Merit: 6
|
|
April 03, 2022, 11:23:49 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
embii
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 62
Merit: 6
|
|
April 03, 2022, 11:29:10 PM |
|
bitfossil filters the actual transaction files out for security reason
[MNT] is basically a tiny file called MNT with no extension
this testnet MNT example is actually linking to metadata that exists on the curecoin blockchain. you would need both blockchains for it to be considered a valid transaction
|
|
|
|
|
n0nce
|
|
April 04, 2022, 01:14:23 AM |
|
Since you mention the moderators, please write what you want to say in a concise way and in single posts, not 10 after each other with a sentence each. This isn't an instant messenger. Pinned here, you can find: 32. Posting multiple posts in a row (excluding bumps and reserved posts by the thread starter) is not allowed.
|
|
|
|
pooya87
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3444
Merit: 10558
|
So in reality you are just creating UTXO bloat by spamming bitcoin blockchain with unspendable transactions and creating pointless burden for full nodes that have to load those UTXOs...
|
. .BLACKJACK ♠ FUN. | | | ███▄██████ ██████████████▀ ████████████ █████████████████ ████████████████▄▄ ░█████████████▀░▀▀ ██████████████████ ░██████████████ █████████████████▄ ░██████████████▀ ████████████ ███████████████░██ ██████████ | | CRYPTO CASINO & SPORTS BETTING | | │ | | │ | ▄▄███████▄▄ ▄███████████████▄ ███████████████████ █████████████████████ ███████████████████████ █████████████████████████ █████████████████████████ █████████████████████████ ███████████████████████ █████████████████████ ███████████████████ ▀███████████████▀ ███████████████████ | | .
|
|
|
|
embii
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 62
Merit: 6
|
|
April 04, 2022, 04:48:13 AM |
|
So in reality you are just creating UTXO bloat by spamming bitcoin blockchain with unspendable transactions and creating pointless burden for full nodes that have to load those UTXOs...
no, they are all valid transactions to users who just haven't been born yet. they are tiny gifts to the future that could eventually be spent. perhaps when we have moon bases on io or when mars has breathable air again. if they really are unspendable as you say...the action of burning bitcoin just makes it more scarce, increasing the overall value of the crypto that can still be traded. you are welcome. apertus.io transactions are not pointless spam, they are memories of loved ones, art, a historical record of humanities failures, hopes, fears and triumphs on permissionless blockchains every person can and will decided for themselves how to allocate their own funds. what i have placed under bitcoin's protection will exist long after all of us are dead. http://bitfossil.com/474b81dcdf6c85e762092799e2a96886f2165e825d17e7eca58f210c2a572ce2/index.htm<3 #embii
|
|
|
|
vjudeu
|
|
April 04, 2022, 07:14:41 AM |
|
no, they are all valid transactions to users who just haven't been born yet But you could just use OP_RETURN! Better: you could use OP_RETURN inside TapScript and just commit to the blockchain, instead of burning coins! There is no reason to burn anything, there is also no reason to bloat the chain. Another thing is that one commitment for the whole network would be cheaper than pushing every commitment for every user.
|
|
|
|
n0nce
|
|
April 04, 2022, 07:24:58 AM |
|
So in reality you are just creating UTXO bloat by spamming bitcoin blockchain with unspendable transactions and creating pointless burden for full nodes that have to load those UTXOs...
no, they are all valid transactions to users who just haven't been born yet. they are tiny gifts to the future that could eventually be spent. perhaps when we have moon bases on io or when mars has breathable air again. Translation to normal English: never. Pooya is right on this one: These UTXOs will remain forever in the UTXO set which full nodes to have to maintain actively, so its size is artificially increased by people doing these types of experiments. Since you are still an extremely tiny minority, we don't see 'bad effects' of it yet, but if the idea catches on, I do see how this can eventually become an attack on Bitcoin. You can find it in .bitcoin/chainstate. https://statoshi.info:3000/d/000000009/unspent-transaction-output-set?orgId=1&viewPanel=8&refresh=10mIf we have a look, it's currently almost 5GB, but since we know that e.g. this project exists, it can never ever go down close to zero again, but will have a certain 'base' defined by the coins sent to addresses for which private keys are lost or never existed (such as in this application). Mathematically, they do exist, but you and I know these coins will never be spent. apertus.io transactions are not pointless spam, they are memories of loved ones, art, a historical record of humanities failures, hopes, fears and triumphs on permissionless blockchains every person can and will decided for themselves how to allocate their own funds. what i have placed under bitcoin's protection will exist long after all of us are dead.
It depends on how you define pointless spam. If you think of Bitcoin as a payment system, you could argue they are. Similarly to someone starting to write down large chunks of information on bank notes; it's not their primary purpose, but it does work if you split the data across enough bank notes. However, it can reduce the usability of the system, hence they will be replaced by the bank sooner or later. This is not possible in Bitcoin, though. So if you were to upload a 5GB movie through this method, which according to you wouldn't even be very expensive (roughly $50,000), you could effectively double the UTXO set size. If someone were to splurge $5M on such an attack, the chainstate would increase not by 5GB but by 500GB and become too large for most nodes to continue operation. Am I missing something? Seems like a very powerful attack to me.
|
|
|
|
embii
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 62
Merit: 6
|
|
April 04, 2022, 07:51:07 AM |
|
no, they are all valid transactions to users who just haven't been born yet But you could just use OP_RETURN! Better: you could use OP_RETURN inside TapScript and just commit to the blockchain, instead of burning coins! There is no reason to burn anything, there is also no reason to bloat the chain. Another thing is that one commitment for the whole network would be cheaper than pushing every commitment for every user. using OP_RETURN to store data in blockchains actually creates far more bloat then the method we are describing here. the maximum amount of OP_RETURN data currently supported by the network per transaction is 80 bytes.... i think.. it has been awhile since i checked. by using a sendmany transaction i can fit somewhere up to 3K 20 byte chunks into a single transaction. around 60K per transaction. (very rough estimate) apertus.io's default bitcoin wallet settings currently cap the transaction size to 300 or 6K.. this is an adjustable setting. apertus.io is designed to work on 100's of other altcoins as well... not just bitcoin. would you prefer i store a 60KB picture of my daughter's cat using 700 transactions or 1 transaction? <3 #embii
|
|
|
|
Stantcheva
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 1
Merit: 1
|
|
April 04, 2022, 07:52:17 AM |
|
no, they are all valid transactions to users who just haven't been born yet But you could just use OP_RETURN! Better: you could use OP_RETURN inside TapScript and just commit to the blockchain, instead of burning coins! There is no reason to burn anything, there is also no reason to bloat the chain. Another thing is that one commitment for the whole network would be cheaper than pushing every commitment for every user. this paper from ledger compares the efficiency and costs of P2FKH technology employed by apertus.io with other methods to insert data in bitcoin blockchain, hope this can provide some help;D https://ledger.pitt.edu/ojs/ledger/article/view/101/93
|
|
|
|
embii
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 62
Merit: 6
|
|
April 04, 2022, 08:22:23 AM |
|
no, they are all valid transactions to users who just haven't been born yet But you could just use OP_RETURN! Better: you could use OP_RETURN inside TapScript and just commit to the blockchain, instead of burning coins! There is no reason to burn anything, there is also no reason to bloat the chain. Another thing is that one commitment for the whole network would be cheaper than pushing every commitment for every user. this paper from ledger compares the efficiency and costs of P2FKH technology employed by apertus.io with other methods to insert data in bitcoin blockchain, hope this can provide some help;D https://ledger.pitt.edu/ojs/ledger/article/view/101/93thank you!! it is a great research paper... we chose P2FKH because it was the easiest to implement because it was and still is a method accessible via a standard RPC command that a majority of the blockchains support. because it is provably unprune-able... our goal @hugpuddle.org is #forever... like forever ever and ever.. . i am totally serious about bitcoin still being around when humans are exploring io and vacationing on mars. the great #satoshi seemed to have no problems with storing our history on blockchains. “The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks.” <3 #embii
|
|
|
|
n0nce
|
|
April 04, 2022, 08:50:19 AM |
|
the great #satoshi seemed to have no problems with storing our history on blockchains.
“The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks.”
You do realise this had a very, very specific, useful and actually necessary purpose, though? Like, proving there was no pre-mine? I'm not sure it's a good idea to store data on the blockchain by putting it into the UTXO set. Using your numbers, Ripple and Greenpeace with their $5M anti-Bitcoin budget could have increased the UTXO set size to over 500GB over the course of roughly a year. I understand that even if you don't put a tool out there that easily allows people to bloat like this, they can code it themselves. But it's still a pretty considerable attack vector if we see how much money is splurged on anti-Bitcoin campaigns these days.
|
|
|
|
ABCbits
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2870
Merit: 7492
Crypto Swap Exchange
|
no, they are all valid transactions to users who just haven't been born yet But you could just use OP_RETURN! Better: you could use OP_RETURN inside TapScript and just commit to the blockchain, instead of burning coins! There is no reason to burn anything, there is also no reason to bloat the chain. Another thing is that one commitment for the whole network would be cheaper than pushing every commitment for every user. using OP_RETURN to store data in blockchains actually creates far more bloat then the method we are describing here. the maximum amount of OP_RETURN data currently supported by the network per transaction is 80 bytes.... i think.. it has been awhile since i checked. 80 bytes limitation is only enforced by Bitcoin node though. If you're pool owner or can convince pool miner to add your transaction, OP_RETURN would create less bloat.
|
|
|
|
vjudeu
|
|
April 04, 2022, 10:42:26 AM |
|
using OP_RETURN to store data in blockchains actually creates far more bloat then the method we are describing here Using many OP_RETURN outputs in a single TapScript creates far less bloat, while making funds spendable, because you have some tweaked public key and attached commitments. You don't need to store data on-chain, you only need to commit them to prove that they are connected with the chain. And you can do that without making any bloat, with zero additional on-chain bytes, just by tweaking your key, so it is cheaper.
|
|
|
|
tromp
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 978
Merit: 1087
|
|
April 04, 2022, 02:50:42 PM |
|
using OP_RETURN to store data in blockchains actually creates far more bloat then the method we are describing here You don't need to store data on-chain, you only need to commit them to prove that they are connected with the chain. Some applications *do* want to store, in order to publicly expose the data. Committing doesn't do that.
|
|
|
|
pooya87
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3444
Merit: 10558
|
would you prefer i store a 60KB picture of my daughter's cat using 700 transactions or 1 transaction? What we prefer is for bitcoin to be used as it was meant to, meaning as a payment system not a distributed database where arbitrary data is being stored. The reason why OP_RETURN was introduced is to discourage exactly what you are doing (creating UTXO bloat) and the 80-byte limit is another discouragement telling you that bitcoin blockchain is not a place to store arbitrary data, even if you could.
|
. .BLACKJACK ♠ FUN. | | | ███▄██████ ██████████████▀ ████████████ █████████████████ ████████████████▄▄ ░█████████████▀░▀▀ ██████████████████ ░██████████████ █████████████████▄ ░██████████████▀ ████████████ ███████████████░██ ██████████ | | CRYPTO CASINO & SPORTS BETTING | | │ | | │ | ▄▄███████▄▄ ▄███████████████▄ ███████████████████ █████████████████████ ███████████████████████ █████████████████████████ █████████████████████████ █████████████████████████ ███████████████████████ █████████████████████ ███████████████████ ▀███████████████▀ ███████████████████ | | .
|
|
|
|
|