Re: [bitcoin-dev] Merkle trees and mountain ranges

2016-06-15 Thread Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Merkle trees and mountain ranges

2016-06-15 Thread Bram Cohen via bitcoin-dev
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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Merkle trees and mountain ranges

2016-06-15 Thread Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC for BIP: Derivation scheme for P2WPKH-nested-in-P2SH based accounts

2016-06-15 Thread Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC for BIP: Derivation scheme for P2WPKH-nested-in-P2SH based accounts

2016-06-15 Thread Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev
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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC for BIP: Derivation scheme for P2WPKH-nested-in-P2SH based accounts

2016-06-15 Thread Daniel Weigl via bitcoin-dev
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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC for BIP: Derivation scheme for P2WPKH-nested-in-P2SH based accounts

2016-06-15 Thread Jochen Hoenicke via bitcoin-dev
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

[bitcoin-dev] Merkle trees and mountain ranges

2016-06-15 Thread Bram Cohen via bitcoin-dev
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