Hi,
It occurred to me while having a few email exchanges with John Tromp (doing the
code review, I guess he didn't want to hurt my feelings publicly :P) that we
may have different views as to how kernels exist in transactions (I think it's
pretty clear to all how they work in blocks).
My take is that we can't allow multiple kernels in standalone transactions as
long as we can't figure out how to do transaction pool cut-through safely.
Otherwise we're opening ourselves to a whole range of annoying attacks in the
pool. If someone has a solution that would still make transaction cut-through
impossible while allowing multiple kernels, I'm all ears.
Otherwise, transactions have a single kernel, which doesn't need to be a kernel
at all because the excess commitment can be trivially calculated (so only fee
and excess sig are required).
- Igno
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble
Post to : mimblewimble@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
