On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 06:16:26PM -0700, Bram Cohen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 05:14:23PM -0700, Bram Cohen via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter proposes that there should be both UTXO and STXO commitments, and
> >
> > No, that's
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 05:14:23PM -0700, Bram Cohen via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> >
> > Peter proposes that there should be both UTXO and STXO commitments, and
>
> No, that's incorrect - I'm only proposing TXO commitments, not UTXO nor
> STXO
> com
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 05:14:23PM -0700, Bram Cohen via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> This is in response to Peter Todd's proposal for Merkle Mountain Range
> commitments in blocks:
>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-May/012715.html
>
> I'm in strong agreement that there's a
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Indeed, and you can go even further. When there are multiple "sending"
> outputs, pick one at random, and mimic it for the change output. This means
> that if you have a P2PKH and 3 P2SH
On Jun 15, 2016 12:53, "Daniel Weigl via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> That would be a big privacy leak, imo. As soon as both outputs are spent,
its visible
> which one was the P2WPKH-in-P2SH and which one the pure P2WPKH and as a
consequence
> you leak which outp
Hello Jochen,
> I think we should already consider not only P2WPKH over P2SH addresses
> but also "native" P2WPKH addresses. Instead of having one BIP for these
[...]
> BIP?? compatible wallet must support both of them. Since P2WPKH is
> simpler than P2WPKH over P2SH, this is IMHO reasonable to
Hello Daniel,
Am 14.06.2016 um 17:41 schrieb Daniel Weigl via bitcoin-dev:
> Hi List,
>
> Following up to the discussion last month (
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-May/012695.html
> ), ive prepared a proposal for a BIP here:
>
>
> https://github.co
This is in response to Peter Todd's proposal for Merkle Mountain Range
commitments in blocks:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-May/012715.html
I'm in strong agreement that there's a compelling need to put UTXO
commitments in blocks, and that the big barrier to getting