## Using non-default ports for automatic connections in Bitcoin P2P network
ISPs can block default port 8333 used by Bitcoin nodes. One example:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-September/010798.html
While it would still be possible for crawlers and scanners to know a
> Justice. Also, there's no incentive for the honest party to not punish -
> presumably their software would automatically punish, and why go through any
> effort to stop it? A 1 cent bribe certainly wouldn't be enough. Maybe a $10
> bribe might get someone somewhere to install hacked up softwar
The hash would normally also cover the hash flags in use, and would be
different in those two cases.
But yes, it seems at the last minute I did include a suggestion to disable
covering the flag themselves in the hash and appear to have accidentally
allowed for recursive covenants (a common occurre
Perhaps there is some misunderstanding. TXHASH + CSFSV doesn't allow for
complex or recursive covenants. Typically CAT is needed, at minimum, to
create those sorts of things. TXHASH still amounts to deploying a
non-recursive covenant construction.
This seems false to me.
txhash txhash equal
On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 10:14 AM James O'Beirne
wrote:
> > Technical debt isn't a measure of weight of transactions.
>
> Sorry, my original sentence was a little unclear. I meant to say that the
> notion that CTV is just a subpar waypoint en route to a more general
> covenant system may not be ac
