On 2022-11-07 23:17, Salvatore Ingala via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Hi list,
Hi Salvatore!,
I have been working on some notes to describe an approach that uses
covenants in order to enable general smart contracts in bitcoin. You
can find them here:
https://merkle.fun
I haven't yet been able
--- Original Message ---
On Tuesday, October 18th, 2022 at 9:00 AM, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> I mean, if you think the feedback is wrong, that's different: maybe we
> shouldn't care that zeroconf apps are in immediate danger, and maybe
> bitcoin would be better if any that
technically, all we need is for *miners* to consistently mine "full
rbf"
There's another important point I think:
technically, all we need is for *miners* to consistently mine the
highest fee-rate transaction (or the one with the most incentive).
Miners could probably be incentivized to
Bob has staked liquidity in a payment channel with Alice who later
double spends the same inputs (at a very low feerate) resulting in a
stalemate where neither can spend the UTXOs.
I just realized I made a mistake. RBF will always mine the higher fee
transaction, so in this case, full-rbf
On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 05:55:59PM -0500, Antoine Riard wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> > We can ensure with high probability that the transaction can be
> > cancelled/mined
> > at some point after N blocks by pre-signing a transaction, with nLockTime
> > set
> > sufficiently far into the future,
On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 03:34:32PM -0800, Bram Cohen via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Another probably unhelpful bit of feedback I have is that Bitcoin should
> probably be taking verkle trees seriously because those can have
> substantially lower size/cost/weight than merkle trees. That doesn't just
>
