--- Log opened Mon Jun 24 00:00:12 2013 12:16 < HM_> Hmm 12:16 < HM_> seems to be common in ECC to take the x coordinate, mod n, of a point g1 to multiply it by another point g2 12:17 < HM_> (rather than "scalar" point multiplication) 12:17 < HM_> mind boggles. g1 x g2 x g3 12:20 < HM_> so I*[g1]^x in the notation i'm looking at would be X_Coord_of(PointMul(x, g1)) mod n, multiplied by I 12:20 < HM_> in EC terms 12:31 < HM_> I guess as long as it's commutative and has the mathematical properties you want, it doesn't matter how you encode a point 15:25 < gmaxwell> This might be of some idle amusement: 15:25 < gmaxwell> 12:21 < mjg59> How much real money would it cost for me to be able to back up 10GB of content into the bitcoin block chain? 15:25 < gmaxwell> 12:22 < mjg59> I'm looking to have cheap replicated backups 15:26 < gmaxwell> (mjg59 is Matthew Garrett, well known linux person who now works at https://www.nebula.com/ ) 15:27 < amiller_> lol 15:28 < petertodd> nice 15:29 < petertodd> tell him ~$1000 to $10,000 15:30 < gmaxwell> petertodd: thats not realistic. 15:31 < gmaxwell> It would take 70 days of full blocks to do it. It would be blocked long before then. 15:31 < petertodd> I never said how long 15:31 < gmaxwell> And so you'd need to factor in the cost of paying someone to work around the block or buying astroturfing to prevent the blocking. 15:31 < petertodd> Those are, IIRC, the numbers for a mechanism that's tricky to block. 15:32 < gmaxwell> ah, well, then that would take a long time indeed. 15:32 < petertodd> yeah, takes forever, but in theory it's doable 15:33 < petertodd> more likely by the time your 10% done you'll find that fee competition is an issue 15:33 < petertodd> simply because other people get the "bright idea" 16:09 < jgarzik> would be an excellent faq / blog post 16:09 < jgarzik> answering that question, both time and cost 16:10 < petertodd> yeah, and stress that if people start actually doing that, the cost is going to go way, way up 17:12 < amiller_> is there a good way of slowing down the tx processing time 17:12 < amiller_> like making a costly to validate transaction using only standard tx 17:12 < amiller_> the best i can think of is just to have a bunch of txinputs in separate transactions and try to hurt the leveldb but it's hard to imagine it taking very long 17:13 < amiller_> or to have only one invalid transaction signature and hopefully it's the last one validated 17:17 < gmaxwell> CHECKSIG CHECKSIG CHECKSIG CHECKSIG CHECKSIG CHECKSIG CHECKSIG CHECKSIG CHECKSIG 17:17 < gmaxwell> but we deal with that. 17:17 < jgarzik> heh 17:22 < amiller_> that's not a standard tx is it? 17:23 < amiller_> and how is that dealt with 17:23 < amiller_> "// Support up to x-of-3 multisig txns as standard" 17:30 < gmaxwell> the maximum number of checksig operations per block is limited... and anyone accepting non-standard txn should hopefully be smart about not letting a single txn use up their quota. 17:37 < jgarzik> that level is smart is absent in mining right now 17:38 < gmaxwell> yea, but so is accepting non-standard txn generally. 18:37 < amiller_> i'm not interested in per block so much as for mempool 18:38 < gmaxwell> Protected by IsStandard --- Log closed Tue Jun 25 00:00:15 2013