> * Key-value map model or set model.
> * Ability for Combiners to verify two PSBT are for the same transaction
> * Optional signing
> * Derivation from xpub or fingerprint
> * Generic key offset derivation
> * Hex encoding?
I think all of Pieters points are valid and reasonable thought, though I’
Well miners already regularly mine empty blocks. However, it is usually in
the economic interest of the miners to collect transaction fees. This
incentive should hopefully be enough to prevent miners from choosing to
produce many empty blocks.
If a nation state attacker decides to allocate billion
https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/wiki/Other-Means-Principle
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:39 AM Артём Литвинович via bitcoin-dev
>> wrote:
>> Dilution is a potential attack i randomly came up with in a Twitter
>> arguement and couldn't find any references to or convincing arguments of i
Hello,
First of all, we'd like to apologize for such a late feedback, since
there is a PR for this already. We've come up with a few more notes on
this, so we are introducing those in this message and replying on
Pieter's points in another one.
1) Why isn't the global type 0x03 (BIP-32 path) per
hello,
this is our second e-mail with replies to Pieter's suggestions.
On 16.6.2018 01:34, pieter.wuille at gmail.com (Pieter Wuille) wrote:
> * Key-value map model or set model.
>
> This was suggested in this thread:
> https://twitter.com/matejcik/status/1002618633472892929
>
> The motivation b
I agree with matejcik’s point 1 to 3 and especially with point 4.
The mandatory flag (or optional-flag) makes much sense to me.
> ---
>
> In general, the standard is trying to be very space-conservative,
> however is that really necessary? We would argue for clarity and ease of
> use over
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:20 AM, matejcik via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
Thanks for your comments so far. I'm very happy to see people dig into
the details, and consider alternative approaches.
> 1) Why isn't the global type 0x03 (BIP-32 path) per-input? How do we
> know, which BIP-32 path goes to which
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 04:34:40PM -0700, Pieter Wuille wrote:
...
> First of all, it's unclear to me to what extent projects have already
> worked on implementations, and thus to what extent the specification
> is still subject to change. A response of "this is way too late" is
> perfectly fine.
.
