The unsung Heroes of Bitcoin, Cryptography
I'm writing this post directed at Bitcoin enthusiasts that are not cryptographers. If you are a programmer you might have heard of some of these names.
The brilliance of Bitcoin is imo how Satoshi did not invent a new building block but elegantly combined preexsisting classics of cryptography. Standing on the shoulders of giants. But every story about giants has its side characters.
So, let's take a look at the side figures in the development of cryptography:
Vigenere
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Vigenere.jpg
One of the most foundational achievements in Cryptography is the concept of perfect security (in symmetric encryption). It is mainly attributed to the One Time Pad nowadays. But Vigenere reached almost the same conclusion based on letter-permutations instead of bitwise xor in the 1500s without the theoretical groundworks that the later One Time Pad had.
Everybody in cryptography knows Claude Shannon. He was for sure a great man creating the very foundations for modern cryptography but he's not as underrated. Other notable figures in this field are Frank Miller, Gilbert Vernam etc.
Kerckhoff
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Auguste_Kerckhoffs.jpg
In the 1800s Kerckhoff formulated the principle that all cryptographys security should only be based on the key and not the system. He said it a little differently but the thought still stands.
« Il faut qu’il n’exige pas le secret, et qu’il puisse sans inconvénient tomber entre les mains de l’ennemi. »
Friedman
William Friedman broke "code purple" in WW2 which was not only instrumental for the free world winning against the Japanese but also maybe the reason cryptography came into institutions, universities and companies in the US.
Everybody knows about Alan Turing inventing basically modern computers to beat the Nazis, few people know about William Friedman and his later to be wife Elizebeth Smith basically reinventing cryptoanalysis from scratch.
Another funny story about Friedman: His first employer was a millionairs playground who didn't know anything about cryptography and basically thought it wasn't important but very fun and interesting to pour his endless wealth into.
Adleman
Everybody has heard about RSA . But even a lot of people that know the brilliance of prime factorization based crypto don't know why we talk so much about Rivest and Shamir and so little about Leonard Adelman. Sure, especially Shamir has achieved a lot a lot more - he's basically the DaVinci of crypto...
Have you evere wondered why "RSA" isn't alphabetically?
In the development of RSA Rivest and Shamir were inventing new ideas and algorithms all the time and then running over to Leonard Adelman who was trying to break it or build a mathematical proof around it. It's the underrated job in this development process. But not at all less important. Certainly not so much less important to write his name last.
I think Adelmans contribution to humankind is so underrated, don't forget him when mentioning Whitfield Diffie, Martin Hellman, Adi Shamir and Taher Elgamal.
Chaum
David Chaum might not be as unknown to non-cryptographer Bitcoiners here. Basically Chaum introduced in 1990 anonymous eCASH with his company DiGiCash. It did not really solve the double spend problem and it was still a centralized currency. But he was so far ahead and he is the godfather of all that came later. He almost cashed out big with Microsoft but did not because he had idiotic demands. I can't speak for his actions after 2009, some of you guys probably have opinions about that.
Ulbricht
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Ross_Ulbricht.jpg/800px-Ross_Ulbricht.jpg
The founder of Silk Road. Why is his contribution to Bitcoin underrated in my opinion? Because Bitcoins early days were highly dependent on people who ugently needed Bitcoin. For most of us the need for a decentralized hard money is a goal in pursuit of noble ideals. For Silk Road users it was an urgent necessity.
You
okay, you know what cringe paragraph comes here. Blabla, you get the point
This was a fun writeup for me. I still know a lot of other stories that I want to tell, I could write a second post if you liked this one
No. "Hodl contracts" is the name of a python app I made that uses hodl invoices to emulate an oracle service on the lightning network. Hodl invoices allow a merchant -- Bob -- to programmatically settle or cancel a payment from Alice, but they (Bob) have the private key necessary to do that, so it's fully custodial. Hodl contracts are different. They allow a routing node -- Carol -- to conditionally forward or cancel a payment from Alice to Bob, but the third party does not have the keys to the money (Carol is just a routing node), so she does not have custody of the funds.
Robosats uses hodl invoices for escrow, but they do not use hodl contracts. As a result, robosats is a fully custodial service. When you enter a contract on robosats, you send your collateral to Robosats, not your counterparty, and they use hodl invoices to conditionally settle or cancel your collateral payment depending on whether there is a dispute. (If there is no dispute, they cancel your collateral payment, thus giving you your money back; if there is a dispute, they settle your collateral payment, thus retaining your money until they can decide whether you should get it back or your counterparty should). But since they have all the keys they need to settle the HTLC, they have full custody of the collateral for the duration of the trade. "Whoever holds the keys holds the coins," and in the case of Robosats, Robosats holds the keys. So yeah, Robosats is a fully custodial service, just like coinbase or binance, but anonymous (and made by a fellow who I personally vouch for because I think he is trustworthy).
If by "use regular payments" you mean "use the base layer," I agree. Long duration contracts typically involve large amounts, and for large amounts, the base layer works wonderfully. There are no time limits and there are great tools for making conditional payments, such as 2 of 3 multisig, hashlock contracts, and discreet log contracts. But in sporting events the typical wager is $8-$10, and I don't think the base layer is very good for such amounts anymore. That's why I want to do something like a sports betting site on lightning.
If by "use regular payments" you mean "pay your counterparty directly, with no oracle," you can only do that if you fully trust your counterparty. What if you send them $50 for a game that's coming up on Saturday but they just run off with your money even though their team ends up losing? What if your team wins but your counterparty never sends you the money they owe you? Conditional payments are needed here, but the recipient shouldn't determine the outcome because they can't be trusted. Hodl contracts allow a third party who both counterparties trust to determine the outcome without taking custody of the money (because they are just a routing node).
I hope you see the difference now. Instead of paying your counterparty directly, pay them through a routing node that will forward or cancel the payment based on the outcome of the game. That's what distinguishes hodl contracts from hodl invoices.
Yes
Yes
But the max HTLC limit is pretty easy to solve -- just open up another channel. The max HTLC limit is something like 425 htlcs per channel, which seems like a very high number to me, especially because, if they are all in use, that means your service is very popular, so you can probably easily afford to just open up another channel and get 425 more HTLC slots.
When you say America you mean the US, I assume. Mexico, Canada, Central and South America would seem to have the same geographic advantages, no?
Australia would seem to also have that advantage.
I might be breaking my anonymity a little here but I do have problems controlling my limbs (and my speech). This has been a worsening problem since Genesis block.
I've gone hours without being able to move, and when I can it's pretty sporadic each and every day.
Although I might be the most likely to benefit from this, I've still got certain reservations about it. But my reservations are beginning to thaw.
I've seen videos of people without a limb where they can pick up items using their mind.
I'm sure that the technology will quickly advance as the AI used in this technology advances.
So, for the time being, I'm only voting 'maybe' - only because I'm not gonna be a guinea pig.
But I'll certainly be watching this space closely and keep an open mind.
I guess as I get older, and my health deteriorates further, I'll come to a point where I feel I've got nothing to lose - but try it.
It does sound pretty cool. I'm a bit conservative regarding experimenting with my health though...