Theoretically, if the recipient address had already disclosed the
public key (i.e. already spent from that address), or shared it with
you instead of (or alongside with) the address, then you can use
recipient's ECDSA key to encrypt the message with ECC, as both ECDSA
and ECC share the same kind of
If the miner wants to force fees up, why would he fill up a block with
placeholder high fee transactions, instead of simply cutting off
transactions paying less fee than he is willing to take? Is there any
evidence someone is doing such a thing for whatever reason?
2018-01-27 6:45 GMT-02:00 Nathan
The original altcoin, Namecoin, aimed a building a bitcoin-like, blockchain
based decentralized DNS system. Unfortunately it didn't catch, but it would
be the most logical choice for the name registry database.
2017-11-30 20:20 GMT-02:00 mandar mulherkar via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo
2017-10-10 11:09 GMT-03:00 Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> When you transfer them back, you get newly minted coins, equivalent to the
> amount you "burned" on the chain you're transferring from — as stated in
> the OP.
>
If you have to change Bitcoin to reco
2017-10-09 22:39 GMT-03:00 Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> That is only a one-way peg, not a two-way.
>
> In fact, that is exactly what drivechain does, if one chooses parameters
> for the drivechain that make it impossible for any side-to-main transfer to
>
> > The current chain is effectively single threaded.
>
> This is not true, since xthin/compactblocks have been introduced we
> completely removed this bottle-neck.
> The transactions will be validated continuously, in parallel and not just
> when a block is found.
>
If I understood correctly, OP
2017-07-21 16:28 GMT-03:00 Major Kusanagi via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> [...] But the fact is that if we want to make bitcoins last forever, we
> have the accept unbounded UTXO growth, which is unscalable. So the only
> solution is to limit UTXO growth, meaning bitcoi
2017-07-13 18:58 GMT-03:00 Dan Libby via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> If I understand correctly, my node will accept the incoming tx inputs
> but obviously will not perform any segwit related validation, thus those
> inputs are not fully validated. I don't yet understan
Is it too late to propose to freeze Bitcoin protocol as it is today (no
SegWit, no bigger block)?
Hear me out: assume Bitcoin is frozen as it is now: no more forks, no more
change in consensus rules. Call it Bitcoin 1 (BC1). So, how to evolve and
scale Bitcoin?
Use a very conservative sidechain,
