On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 2:56 PM ZmnSCPxj wrote:
>
> > while in the coin set model each puzzle (scriptpubkey) gets run and
> either assert fails or returns a list of extra conditions it has, possibly
> including timelocks and creating new coins, paying fees, and other things.
>
> Does this mean it
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 5:27 PM Anthony Towns wrote:
> One way to match the way bitcoin do things, you could have the "list of
> extra conditions" encoded explicitly in the transaction via the annex,
> and then check the extra conditions when the script is executed.
>
The conditions are already b
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 7:06 PM ZmnSCPxj wrote:
>
> But cross-input signature aggregation is a nice-to-have we want for
> Bitcoin, and, to me, cross-input sigagg is not much different from
> cross-input puzzle/solution compression.
>
Cross-input signature aggregation has a lot of headaches unless
Since this has meetings like taproot, it seems it's going to end up being
added in bitcoin core no matter what.
Should we start the conversation on how to resist it when that happens?
We should talk more about activation mechanisms and how users should be
able to actively resist them more.
On Tu
What is ST? If it may be a reason to oppose CTV, why not talk about it more
explicitly so that others can understand the criticisms?
It seems that criticism isn't really that welcomed and is just explained
away.
Perhaps it is just my subjective perception.
Sometimes it feels we're going from "don't
Good morning Bram,
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 7:06 PM ZmnSCPxj wrote:
>
> > But cross-input signature aggregation is a nice-to-have we want for
> > Bitcoin, and, to me, cross-input sigagg is not much different from
> > cross-input puzzle/solution compression.
>
> Cross-input signature aggregation
Hi Jorge
> Since this has meetings like taproot, it seems it's going to end up being
> added in bitcoin core no matter what.
Anyone can set up a IRC channel, anyone can organize a IRC meeting, anyone can
announce meetings on the mailing list. Just because an individual is
enthusiastic for a so
Good morning Jorge,
> What is ST? If it may be a reason to oppose CTV, why not talk about it more
> explicitly so that others can understand the criticisms?
ST is Speedy Trial.
Basically, a short softfork attempt with `lockinontimeout=false` is first done.
If this fails, then developers stop and
Hi RBF friends,
Posting a summary of RBF discussions at coredev (mostly on transaction
relay rate-limiting), user-elected descendant limit as a short term
solution to unblock package RBF, and mining score, all open for feedback:
One big concept discussed was baking DoS protection into the p2p lev
Hi Max,
> Whenever the user wants to spend bitcoin to an address, the wallet
> automatically selects those private coins with sufficient sats, coin control
> is displayed to the user.
1.There are no 'private' coins. Every coin is public in Bitcoin.
2.Since, the wallet assumes some coins as 'pr
Hi Peter,
> Regarding to BIP47 there's a newer version (v3 and v4) proposed here:
> https://github.com/OpenBitcoinPrivacyProject/rfc/blob/master/obpp-05.mediawiki
> Now the notification from Alice to Bob is a transaction from Alice to Alice
> as a bare 1 of 3 multisig. The other 2 pubkeys repre
Good morning Billy,
> Hi ZmnSCPxj,
>
> > Just ask a bunch of fullnodes to add this 1Mb of extra ignored data in
> >this tiny 1-input-1-output transaction so I pay only a small fee
>
> I'm not suggesting that you wouldn't have to pay a fee for it. You'd pay a
> fee for it as normal, so there's n
On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 06:54:56PM -0800, Bram Cohen via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 5:27 PM Anthony Towns wrote:
> > One way to match the way bitcoin do things, you could have the "list of
> > extra conditions" encoded explicitly in the transaction via the annex,
> > and then chec
13 matches
Mail list logo
