Hi Robin,
Could you please expand more on how you plan to "implement a SNARK verifier
on Bitcoin’s base layer"?
For your information, I happen to be the one proposing a new opcode OP_ZKP
to enable the Bitcoin network to verify zkp proofs. My proposal requires a
soft fork. You may find more inform
> I would like to point out that I'm not an advocate for doing anything at
this point aside from working on l2
Speaking of L2, I had recently proposed a new opcode OP_ZKP to enable
payments based on ZKP proof. I wonder if it has drawn enough attention but
it seems to me a viable way to address tra
Hi ZmnSCPxy,
> As the network is pseudonymous, an anonymous attacker can flood the
fullnode mempool network with large numbers of non-aggregated transactions,
then in cooperation with a miner confirm a single aggregated transaction
with lower feerate than what it put in the several non-aggregated
Hi ZmnSCPxj,
I do mean to have specialized computing power vendors, which could happen
to be miners, or not. Optiming ZKP computations is rather different from
Bitcoin mining so I expect those vendors to be from more research-driven
teams focused in cryptographic engineering.
I am open to whether
Hi ZmnSCPxj,
Thank you very much for your insights. You are definitely right about
making the verification keys consensus-critical and about how the weight
units. I totally agree that the weighting of ZKP the witness should be
higher. We will carry out some benchmarking to recommend a reasonable
w
Hey everyone,
I am writing this email to propose a new opcode to enable zero knowledge
based spending authorization for Bitcoin. This new opcode OP_ZKP will
enable the Bitcoin network to authorize spending based on off-chain
computation, provided acceptable proof is supplied. This will not only
e
Hi Everyone,
Thank you very much in this thanks giving day for the detailed and well
thought out responses. :)
Steven Hatzakis via bitcoin-dev https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>>:
>* *Option 2*: Perhaps a revision is needed to how the BIP39 seed is
*>* generated in t
> Do you specifically want to support changing the language of seed
words, while keeping the bip32 root seed they generate unchanged?
What is the usecase for this?
Yes and no. Yes that the inter-operability will be much better if the
same seed could be recorded as in English and in other languages
Hello everyone,
I just realized that BIP-0039 is language dependent. I was assuming the
other way till I looked closer. The way the seed is derived from a BIP-0039
entropy, as is shown below, depends on which language to generate the
mnemonic sentence:
Entropy <=> Mnemonic Sentence => PBKDF2 =
