Good morning Paul,
> I don't think I can stop people from being ignorant about Drivechain. But I
> can at least allow the Drivechain-knowledgable to identify each other.
>
> So here below, I present a little "quiz". If you can answer all of these
> questions, then you basically understand
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 12:03:32PM +, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > > Logically, if the construct is general enough to form Drivechains, and
> > > we rejected Drivechains, we should also reject the general construct.
> > Not providing X because it can only be used for E, may generalise
> El Gamal commitments, for example, are perfectly binding but only
computationally hiding.
That's very interesting. I stand corrected in that respect. Thanks for the
information Adam!
On Fri, Feb 25, 2022, 05:17 AdamISZ wrote:
> > I really don't see a world where bitcoin goes that route.
Hi ZmnSCPxj,
> Either you consume the entire UTXO (take away the "U" from the "UTXO")
completely and in full, or you do not touch the UTXO
Ok, so enabling spending a UTXO partly would be a significant departure
from the systems’ design philosophy.
I have been unclear about the fee part. In my
> I really don't see a world where bitcoin goes that route. Hiding coin amounts
> would make it impossible to audit the blockchain and verify that there hasn't
> been inflation and the emission schedule is on schedule. It would inherently
> remove unconditional soundness from bitcoin and
Good morning Zac,
> Hi ZmnSCPxj,
>
> To me it seems that more space can be saved.
>
> The data-“transaction” need not specify any output. The network could
> subtract the fee amount of the transaction directly from the specified UTXO.
That is not how UTXO systems like Bitcoin work.
Either you
Hi ZmnSCPxj,
To me it seems that more space can be saved.
The data-“transaction” need not specify any output. The network could
subtract the fee amount of the transaction directly from the specified
UTXO. A fee also need not to be specified. It can be calculated in advance
both by the network
