I dont think thats true? Sure, you have to assume the block is valid
aside from a too-large size, but it seems sane.
You don't strictly need to show that a leaf is a parseable transaction,
as long as you can assume that the block is valid and that you cannot
forge a SHA256 midstate which, when com
On Mar 25, 2017 12:17 AM, "Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev" wrote:
Any ideas? :/
Can't the size be aggregated up the tree such that each midstate hash is
the hash of branches below plus the agreegate of the sizes below.
This would make the root hash(left + right + size/weight) and the proof
woul
On Thursday, March 23, 2017 6:27:39 PM Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I think it would be clearer to put the "Creation of proofs" section
> before "Proof verification", maybe even before "Proof format" if a
> high level defintion of "full tx size proof" is provided before.
Creation of proofs
Great stuff, although the ordering of the sections seems a little bit confusing.
I think it would be clearer to put the "Creation of proofs" section
before "Proof verification", maybe even before "Proof format" if a
high level defintion of "full tx size proof" is provided before.
Also, in "For th
It works today and can be used to prove exact size: the key observation is that
all you need to show the length and hash of a transaction is the final SHA256
midstate and chunk (max 64 bytes). It also uses the observation that a valid
transaction must be at least 60 bytes long for compression (t
Some questions:
Does this require information to be added to blocks, or can it work today
on the existing format?
Does this count number of transactions or their total length? The block
limit is in bytes rather than number of transactions, but transaction
number can be a reasonable proxy if you a
Despite the generalised case of fraud proofs being likely impossible, there
have recently been regular active proposals of miners attacking with simply
oversized blocks in an attempt to force a hardfork. This specific attack can
be proven, and reliably so, since the proof cannot be broken withou
