Hi Billy,
> I was actually not thinking one large central in-person meeting, but many
smaller decentralized in-person meetings where no one has to travel far.
The meetings can be used to foster communication that can then be
summarized and/or brought online and discussed with the larger group.
> I'd suggest doing that right now, without waiting for the patch to get
merged,
> as it improves the politics of getting the patch merged. Miners tend to
run
> customized bitcoind's anyway.
Philosophically, I think we're better off arguing code patches free from a
political framework and rather
Hi Billy,
Thanks for your interest in a covenant working group.
> place for this kind of thing to happen. I also agree with Ryan Grant's
> comment about in-person cut-through (ie cut through the BS and resolve
> misunderstandings). Perhaps every 3 IRC meetings or so, an in-person
meetup
> can be
if they're required
building blocks of the use-cases.
Le dim. 24 juil. 2022 à 14:23, Bram Cohen a écrit :
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 2:46 PM Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Indeed this range has grown wild. Without aiming
Hi Zeeman,
So on the first concern of using an "economic simulation" or
sidechains/other cryptocurrencies to gather feedback about interest of
Script extensions, I wonder about the value transitivity of such a process
to measure consensus. Namely, if you have asset X picked up in system A, it
elopment, especially w.r.t consensus changes, I'm
curious about it.
[0] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22806
Le dim. 24 juil. 2022 à 09:01, aliashraf.btc At protonmail <
aliashraf@protonmail.com> a écrit :
> --- Original Message ---
> On Saturday, July 23rd, 20
progress and work will be carried out that moves us in
> a positive direction.
>
> Thanks
> Michael
>
> --
> Michael Folkson
> Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com
> Keybase: michaelfolkson
> PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
>
> --- O
Hi Ryan,
> Certain human/organizational limitations prevent things being said in
> logged channels that sometimes can be shared in person. Sometimes
> people break through misunderstandings in person, through either
> informal mingling or the use of Chatham House rules. So I would also
>
Hi,
Discussions on covenants have been prolific and intense on this mailing
list and within the wider Bitcoin technical circles, I believe however
without succeeding to reach consensus on any new set of contracting
primitives satisfying the requirements of known covenant-enabled use-cases.
I
> Point is, the attacker is thousands of UTXOs can also DoS rounds by simply
> failing to complete the round. In fact, the double-spend DoS attack
requires
> more resources, because for a double-spend to be succesful, BTC has to be
spent
> on fees.
I think I agree that effectively a
a few mining node operators to advocate them
with the new policy setting.
Antoine
Le lun. 20 juin 2022 à 19:49, Peter Todd a écrit :
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 08:25:11PM -0400, Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > For that reason, I believe it would be beneficial to the flourishing
>> interactions with upper-layers and applications and to listen to feedback
>> in those areas, and I guess a lot of other Bitcoin researchers/devs too. I
>> know there have been a lot of concerns about full-rbf in the past, however
>> I believe the Bitcoin ecosystem has mature
Hi Gloria,
Thanks for working on that,
> Always overestimating fees may sidestep this issue temporarily (while
mempool
> traffic is low and predictable), but this solution is not foolproof
> and wastes users' money. The feerate market can change due to sudden
> spikes in traffic (e.g. huge
ng to the PR author? Developers should
> provide basic RBF policy options rather than attempting to define what
> constitutes a good policy and removing the ability to disable something
> when necessary.
>
>
> /dev/fd0
>
> Sent with Proton Mail <https://proton.me/> secure
Hi list,
Recent discussions among LN devs have brought back on the surface concerns
about the security of multi-party funded transactions (coinjoins,
dual-funded LN channels, on-chain DLCs, ...). It turns out there is a
low-fruit, naive DoS vector playable against the funding flow of any such
Hi,
Proposing a small tweak to TLUV to enable cancellation of an off-chain
transaction among a set of pool participants. Namely, to give the index of
the constrained output as an opcode item.
Using CoinPool terminology, the Withdraw phase happens by a participant
publishing an Update transaction
hout exposing the user to
> hot-key vulnerabilities in that always-online system. Double spending is
> prevented because the user can access their always-online system to get the
> full payment pool state.
>
> So in short, while I think there may be no way to fundamentally not
>
Hi,
This post recalls the noticeable interactivity issue encumbering payment
pools and channel factories in the context of a high number of
participants, describes how the problem can be understood and proposes few
solutions with diverse trust-minizations and efficiency assumptions. It is
Hi Dave,
I think the transitory idea is interesting, though I would say it would
take far more thinking to capture the implications.
> 1. It creates a big footgun. Anyone who uses CTV without adequately
preparing for the reversion could easily lose their money.
I think that downside should be
Hi Mempoololic Anonymous fellow,
> 2. Staggered broadcast of replacement transactions: within some time
> interval, maybe accept multiple replacements for the same prevout, but
only
> relay the original transaction.
If the goal of replacement staggering is to save on bandwidth, I'm not sure
it's
Hi James,
> I don't really see the vaults case as any different from other
> sufficiently involved uses of bitcoin script - I don't remember anyone
> raising these concerns for lightning scripts or DLCs or tapscript use,
> any of which could be catastrophic if wallet implementations are not
>
Hi Zeeman,
> Have not looked at the actual vault design, but I observe that Taproot
allows for a master key (which can be an n-of-n, or a k-of-n with setup
(either expensive or trusted, but I repeat myself)) to back out of any
contract.
>
> This master key could be an "even colder" key that you
Hi Jeremy,
> I've seen some discussion of what the Annex can be used for in Bitcoin.
For
> example, some people have discussed using the annex as a data field for
> something like CHECKSIGFROMSTACK type stuff (additional authenticated
data)
> or for something like delegation (the delegation is to
Hi James,
Interesting to see a sketch of a CTV-based vault design !
I think the main concern I have with any hashchain-based vault design is
the immutability of the flow paths once the funds are locked to the root
vault UTXO. By immutability, I mean there is no way to modify the
Hi Zeeman,
> To reveal a single participant in a TLUV-based CoinPool, you need to
reveal O(log N) hashes.
> It is the O(log N) space consumption I want to avoid with `OP_EVICT`, and
I believe the reason for that O(log N) revelation is due precisely to the
arbitrary but necessary ordering.
AFAIU
Hi,
We (Gleb+ me) would like to present the following of our research on
payment pools [0].
Abstract:
CoinPool is a new multi-party construction to improve Bitcoin onboarding
and transactional scaling by orders of magnitude.
CoinPool allows many users to share a UTXO and make instant off-chain
Hi Zeeman,
> After some thinking, I realized that it was the use of the
> Merkle tree to represent the promised-but-offchain outputs of
> the CoinPool that lead to the O(log N) space usage.
> I then started thinking of alternative representations of
> sets of promised outputs, which would not
While I roughly agree with the thesis that different replacement policies
offer marginal block reward gains _in the current state_ of the ecosystem,
I would be more conservative about extending the conclusions to the
medium/long-term future.
> I suspect the "economically rational" choice would be
> In the context of fee bumping, I don't see how this is a criticism
> unique to transaction sponsors, since it also applies to CPFP: if you
> tried to bump fees for transaction A with child txn B, if some mempool
> hasn't seen parent A, it will reject B.
Agree, it's a comment raising the
> Is it still verboten to acknowledge that RBF is normal behavior and
disallowing it is the feature, and that feature is mostly there to appease
some people's delusions that zeroconf is a thing? It seems a bit overdue to
disrespect the RBF flag in the direction of always assuming it's on.
If
Hi Gloria,
Thanks for this RBF sum up. Few thoughts and more context comments if it
can help other readers.
> For starters, the absolute fee pinning attack is especially
> problematic if we apply the same rules (i.e. Rule #3 and #4) in
> Package RBF. Imagine that Alice (honest) and Bob
> One question I have is how you might describe the differences between
what BLDF can accomplish and what e.g. EFF can accomplish. Having been
represented by the EFF on more than one occasion, they are fantastic. Do
you feel that the Bitcoin-specific focus of BLDF outweighs the more general
(but
; --
> @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
> <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 10:00 AM Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm writing to pro
Hi Gloria,
For LN, I think 3 tower rewards models have been discussed : per-penalty
on-chain bounty/per-job micropayment/customer subscription. If curious, see
the wip specification :
https://github.com/sr-gi/bolt13/blob/master/13-watchtowers.md
> - Do we expect watchtowers tracking multiple
Hi Antoine,
> It seems to me the only policy-level mitigation for RBF pinning around
the "don't decrease the abolute fees of a less-than-a-block mempool" would
be to drop the requirement on increasing absolute fees if the mempool is
"full enough" (and the feerate increases exponentially, of
Hi Darosior,
Nice work, few thoughts binding further your model for Lightning.
> For any delegated vault, ensure the confirmation of a Cancel transaction
in a configured number of
> blocks at any point. In so doing, minimize the overpayments and the UTxO
set footprint. Overpayments
> increase
Hi Lisa,
Network mempools constitute a blockspace marketplace where block demand
meets the offer in real-time. Block producers are acting to discover the
best feerate bids compensating for their operational costs and transaction
proposers are acting to offer the best feerate in function of their
re only allowed to use confirmed inputs
> and have many channels (and a limited number of confirmed inputs).
> Otherwise you'll need node operators to pre-emptively split their
> utxos into many small utxos just for fee bumping, which is inefficient...
>
> Bastien
&
Hi Gloria,
Thanks for your answers,
> In summary, it seems that the decisions that might still need
> attention/input from devs on this mailing list are:
> 1. Whether we should start with multiple-parent-1-child or
1-parent-1-child.
> 2. Whether it's ok to require that the child not have
> Correct, if B+C is too low feerate to be accepted, we will reject it. I
> prefer this because it is incentive compatible: A can be mined by itself,
> so there's no reason to prefer A+B+C instead of A.
> As another way of looking at this, consider the case where we do accept
> A+B+C and it sits
> Hmm, I'm reading C5 as "If an oracle says X, and Alice and Carol agree,
> they can distribute all the remaining funds as they see fit".
Should be read as an OR:
IF 2 2 CHECKMULTISIG
ELSE 2 2 CHECKMULTISIG
ENDIF
<> 2 IN_OUT_AMOUNT
The empty vector is a
Hi Gloria,
> A package may contain transactions that are already in the mempool. We
> remove
> ("deduplicate") those transactions from the package for the purposes of
> package
> mempool acceptance. If a package is empty after deduplication, we do
> nothing.
IIUC, you have a package A+B+C
logically equivalent subtree embedded
in the modifying tapscript.
If you have multiple modifying scripts and you can't predict the order, I
think the tree complexity will be quickly too high and grafroot-like
approaches are likely better
Le mer. 15 sept. 2021 à 02:51, Anthony Towns a écrit :
Sorry for the lack of clarity, sometimes it sounds easier to explain ideas
with code.
While MERKLESUB is still WIP, here the semantic. If the input spent is a
SegWit v1 Taproot output, and the script path spending is used, the top
stack item is interpreted as an output position of the spending
Hi AJ,
Thanks for finally putting the pieces together! [0]
We've been hacking with Gleb on a paper for the CoinPool protocol [1]
during the last weeks and it should be public soon, hopefully highlighting
what kind of scheme, TAPLEAF_UPDATE_VERIFY-style of covenant enable :)
Here few early
Hi Jeremy,
Answering here from #22871 discussions.
I agree on the general principle to not blur mempool policies signaling in
committed transaction data. Beyond preserving upgradeability, another good
argument is to let L2 nodes update the mempool policies signaling their
pre-signed transactions
> As developers, we have no
control over prevailing feerates, so this is a problem LN needs to deal
with regardless of Bitcoin Core's dust limit.
Right, as of today, we're going to trim-to-dust any commitment output of
which the value is inferior to the transaction owner's
`dust_limit_satoshis`
I'm pretty conservative about increasing the standard dust limit in any
way. This would convert a higher percentage of LN channels capacity into
dust, which is coming with a lowering of funds safety [0]. Of course, we
can adjust the LN security model around dust handling to mitigate the
safety
overlapping though you might still have to
be careful about siphoning ? Something you should already care about if you
use SIGHASH_SINGLE and your x's amount > y's value.
Le ven. 9 juil. 2021 à 21:47, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 09:19:45AM -0400, Antoine Riard via bitco
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 04:14:13PM -0400, Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> This overhead could be smoothed even further in the future with more
advanced
> sighash malleability flags like SIGHASH_IOMAP, allowing transaction
signers to
> commit to a map of inputs/outputs [2]. In th
course of a year or two seems fine, no need to rush. But I
> suppose it would depend on how often 0-conf is used in the bitcoin
> ecosystem at this point, which I don't have any data on.
>
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 10:00 AM Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxf
Hi Michael,
> Browsing quickly through Greg's piece, a lot of the reasoning is based on
FOSS experience from Linux/Juniper, which to the best of my knowledge are
centralized software projects ?
> That is Greg's point. If Linux doesn't look further than the current
> version and the next version
Hi,
I was super glad to see the recent survey on potential softforks for the
near-future of Bitcoin! I didn't have time to answer this one but will do
so for the future. I wanna to salute the grassroots involvement in bitcoin
protocol development, that's cool to see :)
Though softforks are what
Hi Dave,
> That might work for current LN-penalty, but I'm not sure it works for
eltoo.
Well, we have not settled yet on the eltoo design but if we take the later
proposal in date [0], signing the update transaction with
SIGHGASH_ANYPREVOUT lets you attach non-interactively a single-party
> That's a question I hope we'll gather feedback during next Thursday's
transaction relay workshops.
As someone kindly pointed out to me, workshop is happening Tuesday, June
22th. Not Thursday, mistake of mine :/
Le ven. 18 juin 2021 à 18:11, Antoine Riard a
écrit :
> Hi,
>
> It's a big
Hi,
It's a big chunk, so if you don't have time browse parts 1 and 2 and share
your 2 sats on the deployment timeline :p
This post recalls some unsolved safety holes about Lightning, how
package-relay or SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT can solve the first one, how a mempool
hardening can solve the second
Hi,
I'm writing to propose deprecation of opt-in RBF in favor of full-RBF as
the Bitcoin Core's default replacement policy in version 24.0. As a
reminder, the next release is 22.0, aimed for August 1st, assuming
agreement is reached, this policy change would enter into deployment phase
a year
Thanks for this analysis of a sponsor-like mechanism.
For sure, "watchtower friendly" and "post hoc" are really good point
towards sponsorship, at least other proposals are struggling with
watchtower support, at least in way where your watchtower policy doesn't
leak to your counterparties (which
>>> OP_CHECKSIGADD(p2-fee-bump-key, ) OP_2
>>> OP_NUMEQUALVERIFY
>>>
>>> where <...> indicates the thing comes from the witness stack.
>>> So to bump the fee of the commit tx after it has been signed either
>>> party takes the and adds a signature
Hi,
A short reminder about the 1st transaction relay workshop happening
tomorrow on #l2-onchain-support Libera chat (!), Tuesday 15th June, from
19:00 UTC to 20:30 UTC
Scheduled topics are:
* "Guidelines about L2 protocols onchain security design"
* "Coordinated cross-layers security
fee bumping without DoS or pinning attacks but hopefully I
> have demonstrated that this class of solutions also exists.
>
> [1] https://github.com/ajtowns/bips/blob/bip-anyprevout/bip-0118.mediawiki
>
> Cheers,
>
> LL
>
>
>
> On Fri, 28 May 2021 at 07:13, Antoi
> So something like
`or(and(pk(FB),pk(A)),and(pk(FB),pk(B)),and(pk(FB),pk(C)))` with each `or`
in their own leaf? I think it works, but only if the keys `A`, `B`, `C` are
"hot", as in available to the
fee-bumper. For Revault it means introducing a key for each watchtower in
the vaults descriptors,
Hi Mark and Clara,
Great research, thanks for it!
Few questions out of mind after a first read.
> This approach enables block building to consider Child Pays For Parent
(CPFP) constellations.
I think that's a really interesting point, it's likely that such
transaction graphs with multiple
> Unfortunately, ACP | SINGLE is trivially pinable [0] (TL;DR: i can just
attach an output paying immediately to me, and construct a tx chain
spending it). We are using ACP | ALL for Revault,
> which is the reason why we need a well laid-out pool of fee-bumping UTXOs
(as you need to consume them
Hi,
This post is pursuing a wider discussion around better fee-bumping
strategies for second-layer protocols. It draws out a comparison between
input-based and CPFP fee-bumping techniques, and their apparent trade-offs
in terms of onchain footprint, tx-relay bandwidth rebroadcast, batching
Hi,
Following-up on the workshop announcement [0], I'm proposing today's early
agenda and schedule.
Dates have been picked up 2 weeks after the end of the Miami's conference
as the american crowd will travel around and won't be necessary on their
keyboards. Also, if folks from Asia/Pacific
r. 11 mai 2021 à 17:51, Luke Dashjr a écrit :
> Is there a list of software impacted by this CVE, and the versions it is
> fixed
> in?
>
> (Note this isn't a vulnerability in Bitcoin Core; BIP125 is strictly a
> policy
> matter, not part of the consensus rules and never safe to r
Hi Ruben,
Thanks for raising awareness about spacechains/BMM, I didn't have knowledge
it was relying on a fee-based English auction to mine side-blocks. IIUC,
it's another type of dynamic membership
multi-party signature where parties are block-signing with a fee proposal
instead of a PoW ?
Hi,
I'm writing to report a defect in Bitcoin Core bip125 logic with minor
security and operational implications for downstream projects. Though this
defect grieves Bitcoin Core nodes 0.12.0 and above, base layer safety isn't
impacted.
# Problem
Bip 125 specification describes the following
policy,
> but perhaps it could be helpful to expose a configurable RPC (e.g. #21413
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21413>) to test a range of
> scenarios?
>
> Anyway, looking forward to discussions :)
>
> Best,
> Gloria
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 8:51 AM
Hi Luke,
For the records and the subscribers of this list not following
#bitcoin-core-dev, this mail follows a discussion which did happen during
yesterday irc meetings.
Logs here : http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2021-04-22.log
I'll reiterate my opinion expressed during the meeting. If this
Hi Jeremy,
Yes dates are floating for now. After Bitcoin 2021, sounds a good idea.
Awesome, I'll be really interested to review again an improved version of
sponsorship. And I'll try to sketch out the sighash_no-input fee-bumping
idea which was floating around last year during pinnings
Hi,
During the lastest years, tx-relay and mempool acceptances rules of the
base layer have been sources of major security and operational concerns for
Lightning and other Bitcoin second-layers [0]. I think those areas require
significant improvements to ease design and deployment of higher
> I believe this is what BIP 60 does, or did you have something else in
> mind?
Right, it achieves the first goal of dissociating `fRelay` from BIP37 but
it doesn't document Core specific behavior of disconnecting peers for raw
TX messages reception
from outbound block-relay-only peers, as
Hi John,
> I think a good counter-argument against simply using `fRelay` for this
> purpose is that we shouldn't reuse a protocol feature designed for one
> function to achieve a totally different aim. However, we know that nodes
> on the network have been using `fRelay` to disable transaction
Hi Jeremy,
If I understand correctly your concern, you're worried that change would
ease discovery of the node's tx-relay topology ? I don't scope transaction
origin inference, if you suppose the
unrequested-tx peer sending is the attacker it must have learnt the
transaction from somewhere else
Hi,
I'm proposing to stop the processing of unrequested transactions in Bitcoin
Core 22.0+ at TX message reception. An unrequested transaction is one
defined by which a "getdata" message for its specific identifier (either
txid or wtxid) has not been previously issued by the node [0].
This
Hello Kevin,
Thanks for starting this thread, that's a really relevant discussion
ecosystem-wise !
> * Proposed improvement: The HW should display the Bitcoin Script itself
when possible (including the unlock conditions).
What level of script literacy are you assuming on your users ? I can see
Hello AC,
Yes that's a real issue. In the context of multi-party protocols, you may
pre-signed transactions with the feerate of _today_ and then only going to
be broadcast later with a feerate of _tomorrow_.
In that case the pre-signed feerate may be so low that the transaction
won't even
I think this is a worthy idea as the funding outpoint of any off-chain
protocols is an invariant known by participants. Thus by sponsoring an
outpoint you're requiring from network mempools to increase the feerate of
the package locally known without assuming about the concrete state as any
of
Right, I was off the shot. Thanks for the explanation.
As you mentioned, if the goal of the sponsor mechanism is to let any party
drive a state N's first tx to completion, you still have the issue of
concurrent states being pinned and thus non-observable for sponsoring by an
honest party.
E.g,
EDIT: I misunderstood the emplacement of the sponsor vector, please
disregard previous review :( Beyond where the convenient place should live,
which is still accurate I think.
> The
> Sponsor Vector TXIDs must also be
> in the block the transaction is validated in, with no restriction on
>
Hi Jeremy,
This is a really interesting proposal to widen the scope of fee mechanisms.
First, a wider point on what this proposal brings with regards to pinning,
to the best of my knowledge.
A pinning may have different vectors by exploiting a) mempools limits (e.g
descendants) or b) mempools
Hi Zeeman,
I think one of the general problems for any participant in an
interdependent chain of contracts like Lightning or CoinSwap is to avoid a
disequilibrium in its local HTLC ledger. Concretely sending forward more
than you receive backward. W.r.t, timelocks delta aim to enforce order of
Hi Chris,
I forgot to underscore that contract transaction output must be grieved by
at least a CSV of 1. Otherwise, a malicious counterparty can occupy with
garbage both the timelock-or-preimage output and its own anchor output thus
blocking you to use the bumping capability of your own anchor
Hello Chris,
I think you might have vulnerability issues with the current design.
With regards to the fee model for contract transactions, AFAICT timely
confirmation is a fund safety matter for an intermediate hop. Between the
offchain preimage reveal phase and the offchain private key handover
Hi list,
Security and operations of higher-layer protocols (vaults, LN, CoinJoin,
watchtowers, ...) come with different assumptions and demands with regards
to tx-relay and fee models. As the Bitcoin stack is quite young, it would
be great to make those ones more understood and what p2p/mempool
(tl;dr Ideally network mempools should be an efficient marketplace leading
to discovery of best-feerate blockspace demand by miners. It's not due to
current anti-DoS rules assumptions and it's quite harmful for shared-utxo
protocols like LN)
Hello all,
Lightning security model relies on the
Hi ZmnSCPxj,
> I have not studied the proposal in close detail yet, but anyway, my main
takeaway roughly is:
>
> * The core of CoinPool is some kind of multiparticipant (N > 2) offchain
update mechanism (Decker-Wattenhofer or Decker-Russell-Osuntokun).
> * The output at each state of the update
Hi Jeremy,
For the records, I didn't know between Greg and you was at the origin of
payment pools. Thanks for your pioneer work here, obviously this draws
inspiration from OP_CTV use cases and Channel Factories works, even if we
picked up different assumptions and tried to address another set of
Hi list,
We (Gleb Naumenko + I) think that a wide range of second-layer protocols
(LN, vaults, inheritance, etc) will be used by average Bitcoin users. We
are interested in finding and addressing the privacy issues coming from the
unique fingerprints these protocols bring.
More specifically, we
Hi ZmnSCPxj
Well your deeclipser is already WIP ;)
See my AltNet+Watchdog proposals in Core:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18987/https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18988
It's almost covering what you mention, a driver framework to plug
alternative transports protocols : radio,
Hi ZmnSCPxj,
> (Of note as well, is that the onchain contract provided by such services
is the same in spirit as those instantiated in channels of the Lightning
Network, thus the same attack schema works on the onchain side.)
If you onchain contract uses a timelock and has concurrent
> * At the same time, it retains your-keys-your-coins noncustodiality,
because every update of a Lightning channel requires your keys to sign off
on it.
Yes I agree, I can foresee an easier step where managing low-value channel
and get your familiar with smooth key management maybe a first step
dev wrote:
> > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:01 PM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tuesday 05 May 2020 10:17:37 Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> >>> Trust-minimization of Bitcoin security
Hi Christopher,
Thanks for Blockchain Commons and Learning Bitcoin from the Command Line!
> If there are people interested in coordinating some proposals on how to
defining different sets of wallet functionality, Blockchain Commons would
be interested in hosting that collaboration. This could
Hi Igor,
Thanks for sharing about what it's technically possible to do for a
full-node on phone, specially with regards to lower grade devices.
I do see 2 limitations for sleeping nodes:
- a lightning specific one, i.e you need to process block data real-time in
case of incoming HTLC you need to
may have multiples options:
>> * halt the wallet, wait for human intervention
>> * fallback connection to a trusted server, authoritative on your chain
>> view
>> * invalidity proofs?
>>
>> Now I agree you need a wide-enough, sane backbone network to build on
>> to
> As a result, the entire protocol could be served over something like
HTTP, taking advantage of all the established CDNs and anycast serving
infrastructure,
Yes it's moving the issue of being a computation one to a distribution one.
But still you need the bandwidth capacities. What I'm concerned
> The choice between whether we offer them a light client technology that
is better or worse for privacy and scalability.
And offer them a solution which would scale in the long-term.
Again it's not an argumentation against BIP 157 protocol in itself, the
problem I'm interested in is how
101 - 200 of 209 matches
Mail list logo
