Good morning Ruben and Veleslav,
> Hi Veleslav,
>
> This is something I've been interested in.
>
>
> What you need is a basic merkle sum tree (not sparse), so if e.g. you want to
> burn 10, 20, 30 and 40 sats for separate use cases, in a single tx you can
> burn 100 sats and commit to a tree wit
To be clear, whether "half aggregation needs a new output type or not" does not
become clear in the draft BIP because it is out of scope. Half-aggregation has a
few possible applications. The draft only specifies the cryptographic scheme.
The StackExchange post you link to argues that CISA requir
Hi Veleslav,
This is something I've been interested in.
What you need is a basic merkle sum tree (not sparse), so if e.g. you want
to burn 10, 20, 30 and 40 sats for separate use cases, in a single tx you
can burn 100 sats and commit to a tree with four leaves, and the merkle
proof contains the v
Hello List,
I have been pondering this problem for some time and have not yet come up with
an elegant solution, so I am asking here to get more perspective.
There are many usecases for proof of burn. The current working solution is to
use OP_RETURN with some application specific data.
However,
Thanks for this Jonas. One question that was asked on Telegram (credit: Antoine
D) and isn't clear to me skimming the blog post and the draft BIP is whether
half aggregation needs a new output type or not like we expect cross input
signature aggregation (CISA) to [0]. My understanding is Schnorr
