Good morning Bob,
> Big picture, it seems to me this idea is workable and very interesting. I see
> three likely enhancements that will be necessary or desirable:
> 1. Atomic swap of multiple UTXOs, and binary decomposition of value in lots
> 2. Key exchange ("addresses") to facilitate a secure
Good morning Ruben,
> >The broadcasting of the kickoff simply means that the first stage cannot be
> >easily changed
>
> I see what you're saying. Yeah, it does ruin the stages. If the kickoff tx
> hits the chain, you'd probably just want to "refresh" the UTXO by agreeing
> with the
Good morning Andrew,
> Here's a better explanation than I could write of the phenomenon I'm talking
> about:
>
> > As a thought experiment, let’s consider aquaculture (fish farming) in a
> > lake.
> > Imagine a lake with a thousand identical fish farms owned by a thousand
> > competing
Big picture, it seems to me this idea is workable and very interesting. I see
three likely enhancements that will be necessary or desirable:
1. Atomic swap of multiple UTXOs, and binary decomposition of value in lots
2. Key exchange ("addresses") to facilitate a secure comms path from
Hi ZmnSCPxj,
I appreciate the input.
>Any standardness issue can be fixed by embedding it in a P2WSH / P2SH, you
can use an `OP_TRUE` `redeemScript`, for instance.
Good point. I guess the conversation I recall reading must have been about
avoiding p2sh in order to lower the tx size.
>broadcast
> To change the supply is far too big a change.
It would also be a big change if bitcoin became unusable due to mining profits
dropping low enough for a state actor with a warehouse full of asics to mount a
51% attack and mine empty blocks all day.
> What happens if I own a few million Bitcoin
