Re: [bitcoin-dev] Drivechain proposal using OP_COUNT_ACKS

> 3. Instead of using a OP_NOPx, I suggest you using an unused code such as > 0xba. OP_NOPx should be reserved for some simple "VERIFY"-type codes that > does not write to the stack. > > Ok. I'm not sure, but if everyone agrees to it, I will. Also Segwit > versioning allows to create

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Drivechain proposal using OP_COUNT_ACKS

Responding between lines... On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Johnson Lau wrote: > Some comments and questions > > 1. In the BIP you mentioned scriptSig 3 times, but I don't think you are > really talking about scriptSig. Especially, segwit has aborted the use of > scriptSig to

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Drivechain proposal using OP_COUNT_ACKS

Some comments and questions 1. In the BIP you mentioned scriptSig 3 times, but I don't think you are really talking about scriptSig. Especially, segwit has aborted the use of scriptSig to fix malleability. From the context I guess you mean redeemScript (see BIP141) 2. It seems that 51% of

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Drivechain proposal using OP_COUNT_ACKS

On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > But I would argue that in this scenario, the only way it >> would become invalid is the equivalent of a double-spend... and therefore >> it >> may be acceptable in relation to this

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Drivechain proposal using OP_COUNT_ACKS

> I don't know if it's possible to implement decentralised sidechains without > "breaking" this rule. > I haven't really been following the sidechain developements, but my understanding was that redemption from a side chain would be two phase. The person unpegging the funds provides a proof that

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Drivechain proposal using OP_COUNT_ACKS

On Sunday, October 02, 2016 5:18:08 PM Andrew Johnson via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Is this particular proposal encumbered by a licensing type, patent, or > pending patent which would preclude it from being used in the bitcoin > project? If not, you're wildly off topic. I think that's the concern: we

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Drivechain proposal using OP_COUNT_ACKS

If I understand this BIP correctly, the values pushed onto the stack by the OP_COUNT_ACKS operation depends on the ack and nack counts relative to the block that this happens to be included in. This isn't going to be acceptable. The validity of a transaction should always be monotone in the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Drivechain proposal using OP_COUNT_ACKS

I'm not a lawyer, and my knowledge on patents is limited. I guess RSK WILL endorse DPL or will make the required actions to make sure the things developed by RSK remain free and open. This was not a priority until now, but coding was. For me, coding always is the priority. I will discuss

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Drivechain proposal using OP_COUNT_ACKS

On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 12:18:08PM -0500, Andrew Johnson wrote: > The purpose of this list is highly technical discussion, not political > disagreements. > > Is this particular proposal encumbered by a licensing type, patent, or > pending patent which would preclude it from being used in the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Drivechain proposal using OP_COUNT_ACKS

On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 02:00:01PM -0300, Sergio Demian Lerner wrote: > Peter, are you really going to try to down vote a decent free and > open-source proposal that benefits all the Bitcoin community including > you and your future children because a personal attack to me without any > logic or

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Drivechain proposal using OP_COUNT_ACKS

Peter, are you really going to try to down vote a decent free and open-source proposal that benefits all the Bitcoin community including you and your future children because a personal attack to me without any logic or basis? Is that the way you collaborate to improving Bitcoin? I just can't

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Drivechain proposal using OP_COUNT_ACKS

On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 12:49:08PM -0300, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev wrote: I think your history of patenting(1) Bitcoin consensus relevant technology is sufficient by itself to be extremely dubious of any proposals coming from you or your colleagues; patents on Bitcoin consensus

[bitcoin-dev] Drivechain proposal using OP_COUNT_ACKS

Since ScalingBitcoin is close, I think this is a good moment to publish our proposal on drivechains. This BIP proposed the drivechain we'd like to use in RSK (a.k.a. Rootstock) two-way pegged blockchain and see it implemented in Bitcoin. Until that happens, we're using a federated approach. I'm