Hello Bitcoin-Dev,
A quick update that CVE-2017-9230 has been assigned for the security
vulnerability commonly called ‘ASICBOOST’:
"The Bitcoin Proof-of-Work algorithm does not consider a certain attack
methodology related to 80-byte block headers with a variety of initial 64-byte
chunks follo
Your assumptions of the bribe process are indeed correct you seem to
have a pretty good handle on all of that.
Hopefully I can clear up a few things. BMM among other things is still a
work in progress so you'll have to wait a
bit longer before any reorg code is on github. The "ratchet" system on
g
Yes, 75% seems fine - given that there is a already a wide deployment of
segwit enforcing nodes
This implementation is 100% compatible with a "UASF movement" since, if
triggered, it essentially turns all supporting miners into equivalent
BIP148 enforcers. This should allay any fears that this wo
I would be fine with that, since segwit is widely deployed on the
network already a lower activation threshold should be safe.
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Wang Chun <1240...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we should go for 75%, same Litecoin. As I have said before, 95%
> threshold is too high e
I think we should go for 75%, same Litecoin. As I have said before, 95%
threshold is too high even for unconventional soft forks.
> 在 2017年5月24日，04:58，Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev
> 写道：
>
> Ah. I see now. It wasn't very clear to me that that is what will happen.
>
> Also, shouldn't the timeout
Responses below.
On 5/23/2017 7:26 PM, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
> Good morning,
>
>
>>>
>>> How is OP_BRIBE superior to just using a OP_RETURN script? Cannot
>>> a sidechain scan the block for OP_RETURN attesting that the block hash
>>> is present in the block?
>>
>>The sidechain software can indeed, b
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Tier Nolan wrote:
> OP_BRIBE_VERIFY could then operate as follows
>
>OP_BRIBE_VERIFY
>
> This causes the script to fail if
>does not match the block height, or
>is not the hash for the sidechain with , or
> there is no hash for that sidechain in the
On Wed, May 24, 2017, at 04:42, Erik Aronesty wrote:
> Instead of block thresholds, use utxo bits to coordinate size changes
> (larger and smaller should be allowed).>
> There is no reason for miners to be involved in a decision to change
> this aspects of the protocol. Plenty of other ways to
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Paul Sztorc wrote:
>
> If you haven't seen http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/drivechain/ , that is
> probably the most human-readable description.
>
I guess I was looking for the detail you get in the code, but without
having to read the code.
My quick reading give
