Re: [bitcoin-dev] Drivechain -- Request for Discussion

2017-05-29 Thread Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Hi Peter, Responses below. On 5/28/2017 5:07 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 05:30:46PM +0200, Paul Sztorc wrote: >> Surprisingly, this requirement (or, more precisely, this incentive) does >> not effect miners relative to each other. The incentive to upgrade is only >> for the pu

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compatibility-Oriented Omnibus Proposal

2017-05-29 Thread Oliver Petruzel via bitcoin-dev
>>if the community wishes to adopt (by unanimous consensus) a 2 MB block size hardfork, this is probably the best way to do it right now... Legacy Bitcoin transactions are given the witness discount, and a block size limit of 2 MB is imposed.<< The above decision may quickly become very controver

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compatibility-Oriented Omnibus Proposal

2017-05-29 Thread Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
I can't think of any resistance to this, but the code, on a tight timeline, isn't going to be easy. Is anyone volunteering for this? On May 29, 2017 6:19 AM, "James Hilliard via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > For the reasons listed > here(https://github.com/bitco

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Method for Computing Merkle Roots of Annotated Binary Trees

2017-05-29 Thread Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:55:37AM -0400, Russell O'Connor wrote: > > This doesn't hold true in the case of pruned trees, as for the pruning to > > be > > useful, you don't know what produced the left merkleRoot, and thus you > > can't > > guarantee it is in fact a midstate of a genuine SHA256 hash

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Method for Computing Merkle Roots of Annotated Binary Trees

2017-05-29 Thread Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 4:26 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 03:05:49AM -0400, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > Not all of the inputs to the SHA256 compression function are created > > equal. Only the second argument, the chunk data, is applied to the > SHA256 > > ex

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Emergency Deployment of SegWit as a partial mitigation of CVE-2017-9230

2017-05-29 Thread Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 01:07:58PM -0700, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Anthony, > For the sake of argument: (That seems like the cue to move any further responses to bitcoin-discuss) > (1) What would the situation look like if there was no patent? If there were no patent, and it were ea

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compatibility-Oriented Omnibus Proposal

2017-05-29 Thread James Hilliard via bitcoin-dev
For the reasons listed here(https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0091.mediawiki#Motivation) you should have it so that the HF can not lock in unless the existing BIP141 segwit deployment is activated. The biggest issue is that a safe HF is very unlikely to be able to be coded and tested