Hi Bitcoin Developers,
Does it make sense to trade replacement transactions for privacy? I have shared
basic details to implement this and would love to read opinions about it or
ways to improve it:
=
alice
=
tx1: input a (0.01) -> output
That's actually a good idea. Perhaps I can move the algorithms (of BIP137) and
stuff to Bitcoin Wiki, and then convert the BIP to strictly a "Taproot message
signing BIP".
Even though I already know the chances of such a BIP being numbered is low, at
least the most important part will be accomp
Hi Ali!
Nice work. Since it seems this is a strict superset of BIP137, why not just
focus on things that you are adding (Taproot) while saying your BIP is an
expansion of BIP137?
Your approach make it unnecessarily hard to figure out whether you are
changing anything in handling of ECDSA signatur
> IMO, there is no benefit to an additional message signing standard, especially
> one that doesn't address the problems with the current standard or (at
> present) BIP322.
In that case, I propose the following:
- I scrap the Taproot/Schorr and the two extensions inside the BIP, which will
leave
Also, I forgot to write in the previous message, that this BIP is not a
standard - that's the reason I raised the N+1 problem in the first place. As
mentioned previously, it's strictly limited to a reference manual - which
could've been hosted anywhere else (such as my own website), but these
i
Yeah, I have a specific reason to advance this first (emphasis on the word
first).
I briefly mentioned in the BIP that BIP322 has superior message verification
capabilities. This is true, but it suffers from the drawback that wallets are
not using it. What they are using right now is a chaotic