Hi ZmnSCPxj,
To me it seems that more space can be saved.
The data-“transaction” need not specify any output. The network could
subtract the fee amount of the transaction directly from the specified
UTXO. A fee also need not to be specified. It can be calculated in advance
both by the network and
> what if/when we introduce some Monero-like system and hide coin amounts?
I really don't see a world where bitcoin goes that route. Hiding coin
amounts would make it impossible to audit the blockchain and verify that
there hasn't been inflation and the emission schedule is on schedule. It
would
Good morning Zac,
> Hi ZmnSCPxj,
>
> To me it seems that more space can be saved.
>
> The data-“transaction” need not specify any output. The network could
> subtract the fee amount of the transaction directly from the specified UTXO.
That is not how UTXO systems like Bitcoin work.
Either you co
> I really don't see a world where bitcoin goes that route. Hiding coin amounts
> would make it impossible to audit the blockchain and verify that there hasn't
> been inflation and the emission schedule is on schedule. It would inherently
> remove unconditional soundness from bitcoin and replace
Hi ZmnSCPxj,
> Either you consume the entire UTXO (take away the "U" from the "UTXO")
completely and in full, or you do not touch the UTXO
Ok, so enabling spending a UTXO partly would be a significant departure
from the systems’ design philosophy.
I have been unclear about the fee part. In my pr
> El Gamal commitments, for example, are perfectly binding but only
computationally hiding.
That's very interesting. I stand corrected in that respect. Thanks for the
information Adam!
On Fri, Feb 25, 2022, 05:17 AdamISZ wrote:
> > I really don't see a world where bitcoin goes that route. Hidin
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 12:03:32PM +, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > > Logically, if the construct is general enough to form Drivechains, and
> > > we rejected Drivechains, we should also reject the general construct.
> > Not providing X because it can only be used for E, may generalise to
Good morning AJ,
> ZmnSCPaj, are you arguing that drivechains are bad for bitcoin or are you
> arguing that it would be unwise to opt into a drivechain? Those are very
> different arguments. If drivechains compromised things for normal bitcoin
> nodes that ignore drivechains, then I agree that
Good morning Paul,
> I don't think I can stop people from being ignorant about Drivechain. But I
> can at least allow the Drivechain-knowledgable to identify each other.
>
> So here below, I present a little "quiz". If you can answer all of these
> questions, then you basically understand Dri
