Johnson Lau,
> not change the commitment structure as suggested by another post
Not sure if you realize my proposal is backwards compatible. We could also
merge the two arrays, which would be harder to compress, but a more simple
format. Below I gave an example of how this would be backwards co
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> There are things scriptSig can do that witness cannot today - specifically
> add
> additional conditions under the signature. We can always obsolete scriptSig
> later, after segwit has pr
> On 27 Apr 2017, at 04:01, Luke Dashjr wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 26 April 2017 7:31:38 PM Johnson Lau wrote:
>> I prefer not to do anything that requires pools software upgrade or wallet
>> upgrade. So I prefer to keep the dummy marker, and not change the
>> commitment structure as suggested by a
On Wednesday 26 April 2017 7:31:38 PM Johnson Lau wrote:
> I prefer not to do anything that requires pools software upgrade or wallet
> upgrade. So I prefer to keep the dummy marker, and not change the
> commitment structure as suggested by another post.
Fair enough, I guess. Although I think the
I prefer not to do anything that requires pools software upgrade or wallet
upgrade. So I prefer to keep the dummy marker, and not change the commitment
structure as suggested by another post.
For your second suggestion, I think we should keep scriptSig empty as that
should be obsoleted. If you
cy ID...
preventing replay if at least one branch adopted a new Policy ID.
Cheers,
Praxeology Guy
-------- Original Message
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Segwit v2
Local Time: April 20, 2017 3:28 PM
UTC Time: April 20, 2017 8:28 PM
From: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
To: bitcoin-dev@list
Since BIP 141's version bit assignment will timeout soon, and needing renewal,
I was thinking it might make sense to make some minor tweaks to the spec for
the next deployment. These aren't critical, so it's perfectly fine if BIP 141
activates as-is (potentially with BIP 148), but IMO would be a
