Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Comparison Of LN and Drivechain Security In The Presence Of 51% Attackers

2022-02-26 Thread Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Not bad, but not particularly good either. Definitely correct:   1  (plus extra credit, it was originally 1008+2016),   3a "whales"   3b (atomic swaps is the "official" answer, but otc trading is also acceptable, or just "trade" in general)   6   9  part one Close, but not quite right:   2  (p

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Comparison Of LN and Drivechain Security In The Presence Of 51% Attackers

2022-02-26 Thread Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev
> m is how much people want to kill a sidechain, 0 = everybody would be sad if it died and would rather burn all their BTC forever than continue living Math is brutal On Sat, Feb 26, 2022, 01:39 ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Good morning Paul, > > >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Comparison Of LN and Drivechain Security In The Presence Of 51% Attackers

2022-02-25 Thread ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev
Good morning Paul, > I don't think I can stop people from being ignorant about Drivechain. But I > can at least allow the Drivechain-knowledgable to identify each other. > > So here below, I present a little "quiz". If you can answer all of these > questions, then you basically understand Dri

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Comparison Of LN and Drivechain Security In The Presence Of 51% Attackers

2022-02-24 Thread Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
On 2/24/2022 7:49 AM, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev wrote: ... ... it is easy for 51% hashrate to double-spend in the LN ... ... the above statement is unequivocally ***true***. Both LN and Drivechain are vulnerable to miner-theft; and both use their design to deter theft. However, I believe th

[bitcoin-dev] A Comparison Of LN and Drivechain Security In The Presence Of 51% Attackers

2022-02-24 Thread ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev
Good morning lightning-dev and bitcoin-dev, Recently, some dumb idiot, desperate to prove that recursive covenants are somehow a Bad Thing (TM), [necromanced Drivechains][0], which actually caused Paul Sztorc to [revive][1] and make the following statement: > As is well known, it is easy for 51