On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 12:37 AM, Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > A new block rule is added which requires that the miner's coinbase reward be > at index 0 in the coinbase transaction's output vector.
This is an absurd restriction-- I hope it was not your intent to directly ban P2Pool and probably any other form of decentralized or less centralized mining pooling... but thats what doing that does. > It also fixes the witness commitment output to be at index 1 of the coinbase > transaction's output vector. This removes important flexibility that was intentionally preserved. What happens when an additional commitment is needed for bitcoin? must some sidechain be irreparably destroyed? looks like it in your proposal. > For instance, the mimblewimble sidechain could correspond to index 2 of the > vector outputs on the coinbase transaction. And what happens if index 1 isn't present? if index 35 is used must there be 34 dummy outputs? > This op code looks into the coinbase transaction's output vector at the given > index (which is derived from the sidechain id) and checks to see if the hash > in the block matches the hash inside of the BRIBEVERIFY progra This is not monotone/reorg safe. It means that the output coins (if any) are not equivalently fungible with other bitcoins (for, e.g. 100 blocks) because if there is a reorg this transaction cannot be restored to the chain. It's also impure and not compatible with caching, which would be unfortunate and slow block propagation. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
