On 9/7/21 09:07, 0xB10C via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Hello,
tl;dr: We want to make reorgs on SigNet a reality and are looking for
feedback on approach and parameters.
Awesome!
AJ proposed to allow SigNet users to opt-out of reorgs in case they
explicitly want to remain unaffected. This can be
I'm a bit skeptical of the safety of the control byte. Have you considered
the following issues?
> The low bit of C indicates the parity of X; if it's 0, X has even y,
> if it's 1, X has odd y.
>
> The next bit of C indicates whether the current script is dropped from
> the merkle path, if it's
https://github.com/bitcoin/libblkmaker/blob/master/blkmaker.c#L172
On Thursday 09 September 2021 12:54:18 Mike Rosset via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I recently went down the bitcoin protocol rabbit hole. I wanted to use
> GNU guile scheme to experiment with bitcoin. I initially started
Hello all,
I recently went down the bitcoin protocol rabbit hole. I wanted to use
GNU guile scheme to experiment with bitcoin. I initially started by
creating a toy bitcoin miner but I've run into some inconsistencies with
the documentation found on
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Getblocktemplate.
I like this proposal, I think it has interesting use cases! I'm quick to
charitably Matt's comment, "I’ve been saying we need more covenants
research and proposals before we move forward with one", as before we move
forward with *any.* I don't think that these efforts are rival -- different
Hi Anthony,
This post is a follow-up to your insight on Twitter [0], sent here for better
posterity, accessibility and readability than Twitter. And also to motivate this
idea by giving another concrete [1] usecase for it.
Revault [2] is a multi-party "vault" protocol. It involves 2 sets of
Thanks for taking the time to write this up!
To wax somewhat broadly here, I’m very excited about this as a direction for
bitcoin covenants. Other concrete proposals seem significantly more limited,
which worries me greatly. Further, this feels very “taproot-native” in a way
that encourages
Hi Jeremy,
Answering here from #22871 discussions.
I agree on the general principle to not blur mempool policies signaling in
committed transaction data. Beyond preserving upgradeability, another good
argument is to let L2 nodes update the mempool policies signaling their
pre-signed transactions
On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 04:41:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'll split this into two emails, this one's the handwavy overview,
> the followup will go into some of the implementation complexities.
(This is informed by discussions with Greg, Matt Corallo, David Harding
and Jeremy Rubin;
Hello world,
A couple of years ago I had a flight of fancy [0] imagining how it
might be possible for everyone on the planet to use bitcoin in a
mostly decentralised/untrusted way, without requiring a block size
increase. It was a bit ridiculous and probably doesn't quite hold up,
and beyond
10 matches
Mail list logo
