Hi Varunram,
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 3:41 PM Varunram Ganesh
wrote:
>
> I like your idea of a signet as it would greatly help test reorgs and stuff
> without having to experiment with regtest. But I'm a bit concerned about
> running a common signet (Signet1) controlled by a trusted entity. I gu
Hi Anthony,
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:23 PM Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> Maybe make the signature be an optional addition to the header, so
> that you can have a "light node" that doesn't download/verify sigs
> and a full node that does? (So signatures just sign the traditional
> 80-byte header, and
Hello Kalle,
I like your idea of a signet as it would greatly help test reorgs and stuff
without having to experiment with regtest. But I'm a bit concerned about
running a common signet (Signet1) controlled by a trusted entity. I guess
if someone wants to test signet on a global scale, they could
On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 03:20:49PM -0500, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> To make testing easier, it may make sense to keep the existing block header
> format (and PoW) and instead apply the signature rules to some field in the
> coinbase transaction.
Maybe make the signature be an optional
Hello all,
I started writing code that puts the signature in the coinbase
transaction similar to the witness commitment, and encountered a
potential issue. See inline comments below.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 2:02 AM David A. Harding wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 09:43:43AM +0900, Karl-Johan
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 09:43:43AM +0900, Karl-Johan Alm via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Keeping the PoW rule and moving the signature would mean DoS attacks
> would be trivial as anyone could mine blocks without a signature in
> them
Sure, but anyone could also just connect their lite client to a truste
Hi Lautaro,
Using regtest is not ideal for public networks, as anyone anywhere can
just rewrite the blockchain at their whim by mining a ton of blocks.
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 4:52 AM Lautaro Dragan wrote:
>
> Hi Karl-Johan, my two cents:
>
> At Po.et we use regtest to simulate reorgs in integra
Hi Matt,
On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 5:20 AM Matt Corallo wrote:
>
> To make testing easier, it may make sense to keep the existing block header
> format (and PoW) and instead apply the signature rules to some field in the
> coinbase transaction. This means SPV clients (assuming they only connect to
Hi Karl-Johan, my two cents:
At Po.et we use regtest to simulate reorgs in integration tests in Travis /
CircleCI. It has proved quite useful.
In general regtest for automated testing has given us all we needed so far,
but I admit we have a rather simple use of Bitcoin right now (colored
coins).
To make testing easier, it may make sense to keep the existing block header
format (and PoW) and instead apply the signature rules to some field in the
coinbase transaction. This means SPV clients (assuming they only connect to
honest/trusted nodes) work as-is.
A previous idea regarding reorgs
10 matches
Mail list logo
