On Sun, Sep 03, 2023 at 06:01:02PM +0200, vjudeu via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Given the current concerns with blockchain size increases due to
> > inscriptions, and now that the lightning network is starting to gain more
> > traction, perhaps people are now more willing to consider a smaller
> > b
On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 01:56:18PM +, Andrew Poelstra via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> We can swag what the space savings would be: there are 122MM utxos right
> now, which is a bit under 2^27. So assuming a uniform distribution of
> prefixes we'd need to specify 28 bits to identify a UTXO. To contrast
Hi Peter,
Currently, if we’re given a lock time that is non zero, we drop the 16 most
significant bits and grind through until we have a valid signature. Therefore I
am hesitant to add more fields to grind through, because it can get out of hand
in decompression time really quickly. That said o
