An alternative is to require reading either or but also require
writing without the witness. It's likely that two years from now,
nothing will write the witnesses, and the requirement to support
reading them could be dropped.
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 8:32 PM Achow101 via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
>
> Hi,
Hi,
Since the BIP is already in proposed status, I think that we should specify the
non-witness utxo to just be "witness or non-witness" serialization. This
maintains compatibility with things that have already implemented but also
maintains the forwards compatibility that is needed.
Andrew
Hello all,
BIP174 currently specifies that non-witness UTXOs (the transactions
being spent by non-witness inputs) should be serialized in network
format.
I believe there are two issues with this.
1. Even in case the transaction whose output being spent itself has a
witness, this witness is immat
Hi,
While fixing RSK's SPV bridge I came up with an idea to fix the
MERKLEBLOCK command to prevent rogue peers from attacking SPV peers using
Bitcoin's Merkle tree structure flaws. The most annoying attack is the one
that tries to confuse a victim peer into thinking a transaction is an inner
node,
private-key WEF WIF online/offline transaction services, without a fee are
not in the interest of mainstream bitcoin users.(gaius germanicus)
Bitcoin has grown into a Christmas tree fancy dress in the last 9 years
where efficiency and simplicity should be mandatory and hardcoded.
on the other hand
Hi all,
I wrote a multisignature procedure using bip-schnorr.
If you have time to review and give feedback, I’d really appreciate it.
Thanks in advance!
Multisignature
https://gist.github.com/tnakagawa/0c3bc74a9a44bd26af9b9248dfbe598b
Original
https://github.com/sipa/bips/blob/bip-schnorr/bip-s
