Not bad, but not particularly good either.
Definitely correct:
1 (plus extra credit, it was originally 1008+2016),
3a "whales"
3b (atomic swaps is the "official" answer, but otc trading is also
acceptable, or just "trade" in general)
6
9 part one
Close, but not quite right:
2 (p
> m is how much people want to kill a sidechain, 0 = everybody would be sad
if it died and would rather burn all their BTC forever than continue living
Math is brutal
On Sat, Feb 26, 2022, 01:39 ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Good morning Paul,
>
>
>
Good morning Paul,
> I don't think I can stop people from being ignorant about Drivechain. But I
> can at least allow the Drivechain-knowledgable to identify each other.
>
> So here below, I present a little "quiz". If you can answer all of these
> questions, then you basically understand Dri
On 2/24/2022 7:49 AM, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev wrote:
...
... it is easy for 51% hashrate to double-spend in the LN ...
... the above statement is unequivocally ***true***.
Both LN and Drivechain are vulnerable to miner-theft; and both use their design
to deter theft.
However, I believe th
Good morning lightning-dev and bitcoin-dev,
Recently, some dumb idiot, desperate to prove that recursive covenants are
somehow a Bad Thing (TM), [necromanced Drivechains][0], which actually caused
Paul Sztorc to [revive][1] and make the following statement:
> As is well known, it is easy for 51