Re: [bitcoin-dev] Holdup on Block Alerts / Fraud Proofs ?

2016-07-30 Thread Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
On Saturday, July 30, 2016 11:18:36 PM Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev wrote: > In my view, "alerts" are relatively straightforward: a new OP CODE (details > below) st. the txn only succeeds if it references invalid block content on > a "pretender block". > > However, my background reading seems to re

[bitcoin-dev] BIP114 MAST updated

2016-07-30 Thread Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev
I have published a new version for BIP114 MAST. It's a bit more complicated with some new features: 1. It allows different parties in a contract not to expose their scripts to each other until redemption. 2. It includes a field to indicate the script language version so new opcodes could be ad

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Holdup on Block Alerts / Fraud Proofs ?

2016-07-30 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > I've also heard that segwit will help, but don't understand why. > There are some helpful discussions that happened over here: https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-core-dev/2015-12-28/?ms

[bitcoin-dev] Holdup on Block Alerts / Fraud Proofs ?

2016-07-30 Thread Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Dear list, As we know, it would be desirable for Alice, running an SPV client, to tip (say $5) anyone who can prove to her that a given block has invalid content. If no one takes these tips, then this is weak evidence that the entire block is valid. Alice gets validation, full nodes can get pai

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Committed bloom filters for improved wallet performance and SPV security

2016-07-30 Thread Leo Wandersleb via bitcoin-dev
gmaxwell just made me aware of this mail thread [0]. Some days ago I had independently and naively started implementing "something similar" [1]. My version totally ignored the commitment and signing part but I'm pretty sure that 12GB is overkill. My code is currently broken and I have no time to w