On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 10:21 AM Greg Tonoski via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> > > Price of blockspace should be the same for any data (1 byte = 1 byte,
> > irrespectively of location inside or outside of witness), e.g. 205/205
> > and 767/767 bytes in the examples above.
> >
> > "Should" ... to what end?
On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 12:03 PM Greg Tonoski wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 8:06 PM Nagaev Boris wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 2:26 PM Greg Tonoski via bitcoin-dev
> > wrote:
> > > As a result, there are incentives structure distorted and critical
> > > inefficiencies/vulnerabiliti
On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 12:11 AM David A. Harding wrote:
>
> On 2023-12-29 15:17, Nagaev Boris wrote:
> > Feerate-Dependent Timelocks do create incentives to accept out-of-band
> > fees to decrease in-band fees and speed up mining of transactions
> > using FDT! Miners can make a 5% discount on fee
Hey David!
On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 9:37 PM David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> We can't prevent people from paying out of band, but we can ensure that
> the easiest and most effective way to pay for a transaction is through
> in-band fees and transactions that are relayed to every miner who
On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 1:34 PM Greg Tonoski via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> There is significant difference when storing data as dummy signatures
> (or OP_RETURN) which is much more expensive than (discounted) witness.
> Witness would not have been chosen as the storage of arbitrary data if
> it cost as
On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 2:26 PM Greg Tonoski via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> As a result, there are incentives structure distorted and critical
> inefficiencies/vulnerabilities (e.g. misallocation of block space,
> blockspace value destruction, disincentivized simple transaction,
> centralization around
Hi John!
I have two questions regarding the window, which are related.
1. Why is the window aligned? IIUC, this means that the blocks mined
since the latest block whose height is divisible by window_size do not
affect transaction's validity. So a recent change of fees does not
reflect if a transa
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 6:22 PM wrote:
>
> Thank you for putting yourself through the working of carefully analyzing my
> proposition, Boris!
>
> 1) My demonstration concludes 12 bytes is still a very conservative figure
> for the hashes. I'm not sure where did you get the 14 bytes figure. This
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 11:07 AM wrote:
>
> Thank you for the question, Boris. That was an easy one:
>
> Short answer is Lamport hashes are protected by long hash of key fingerprint
> an ECC (Schnorr or otherwise conventional) public-key, which is not published
> until first transaction. For cla
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 7:44 PM wrote:
>
> I beg to disagree: key owner broadcasts first bundle (let's call it this way)
> so that it is on any miner's best interest to include said bundle on their's
> attempted coinbase because they know if they don't any other competing miner
> will in the ne
Hey Yuri,
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 6:19 AM Yuri S VB via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> down from 136 from ECC.
Schnorr signature has size 64 bytes (serialized format consists of x
coordinate of R and of s, 32 bytes each).
> The whole point is that, in the typical use case in which pre-image of hash
> is
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 1:47 PM ArmchairCryptologist via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Critically, this means that the higher the ratio of the hashrate is
> participating, the lower the cost of the attack. If 100% of miners
> participate with a ratio of transactions equal to their hashrate, the cost of
12 matches
Mail list logo
