Hi John,
Thank you for the question. We have discussed this case in the paper, second
paragraph of the “Bitcoin PoW Anchoring” Section:
> If a party spends current miner single-use-seal without creating a commitment
> - or committing to a header without sufficient PoW, such closing is
> considered invalid; in this case, any party is allowed to create a special
> bitcoin transaction providing publically-identifiableOP_RETURNinformation
> ("announcement") about a new miner single-use-seal (protocol reset); only the
> firstOP_RETURNannouncement which is closed with a proper procedure is
> considered valid under the consensus rules.
Kind regards,
Maxim Orlovsky
On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 4:30 PM, John Tromp via bitcoin-dev
<[bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org](mailto:On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 4:30 PM,
John Tromp via bitcoin-dev <<a href=)> wrote:
>> The white paper describing the proposal can be found here:
>> https://github.com/LNP-BP/layer1/
>
> Some questions about the Bitcoin PoW anchoring:
>
> What if a miner spends the current miner single-use-seal while
> creating a commitment, but makes the PMT only partially available, or
> entirely unavailable ?
>
> How do other miners reach consensus on whether a protocol reset is
> required? It seems impossible to agree on something like PMT
> availability (much like mempool contents).
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
