On 2022-11-07 11:17, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
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, spending one or more inputs of the
transaction
Hi,
Thanks for the comments so far. I think these are all reasonable ideas.
Comments inline below.
On Thursday, November 3rd, 2022 at 1:53 PM, Murch wrote:
> From what I understand we'll have about 35 message types on the network
> with the addition of BIP324. 256 possible IDs sounds like
Hi ZmnSCPxj, Bram, Peter, David,
Thanks for all your comments; replies below.
On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 at 13:01, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
> Modulo bugs, operator error, misconfigurations, and other irrationalities
> of humans.
>
I agree that making footguns impossible is a much more difficult problem to
I read Antoine's original post on this and got the general gist, and
here also, it makes sense, but I'd like to ask: is it necessary that
(B, C) in the above not *see* A's opt-out "pre-replacement" (inputs:
A1, outputs: A, fees: low; call it TX_2)? I get that they cannot
replace it
Is it
Good morning ArmchairCryptologist,
> --- Original Message ---
> On Tuesday, October 18th, 2022 at 9:00 AM, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>
> > I mean, if you think the feedback is wrong, that's different: maybe we
> > shouldn't care that
