Take the discussion of this site to another M-L, please. It is off-topic.
Actual discussion of the paper and side-chains is on-topic.
This M-L is publicly archived.
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Daniel Murrell wrote:
> Sorry Bryan, this was the first paper posted to this list since I've
>
Sorry Bryan, this was the first paper posted to this list since I've
been on it that I added to my site. I was quite excited about this.
I was not planning on and certainly won't be making this advertisement
after every paper posted on this list (I may do it on reddit). I did
post on reddit a few
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Daniel Murrell wrote:
> p.s. I'm not trying to monetize this site. I just tried to make
> something I thought could be useful.
[Unsolicited administrivia follows.]
You have been posting this in a bunch of places for a while now, at
least three times today by my c
I've already added it here:
http://www.opencryptocurrencyreview.com/papers/123/enabling-blockchain-innovations-with-pegged-sidechains
I made this site to allow discussions on exactly these sorts of things
to be publicly visible and easily discoverable in the future (this is
why I replied to all).
For those following this thread, we have now written a paper
describing the side-chains, 2-way pegs and compact SPV proofs.
(With additional authors Andrew Poelstra & Andrew Miller).
http://blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf
Adam
On 16 March 2014 15:58, Adam Back wrote:
> So an update on 1-way pegg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 10/20/2014 12:50 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> One thing this brings up is the never-resolved issue of whether
> BIPs should document how we'd *like* things to work, or how things
> *actually do* work. BIP32 is an example of the former - it was new
> te
On 09/23/2014 11:12 PM, Mem Wallet wrote:
>- M,Sender_Address = ReceiveMessage( eM, Decrypting_Key ) It is
>acceptable for deterministic nonces to be used for signatures, however
>nonces generated for ECIES must be high quality random bytes. (excepting
>unit test vectors)
Could you
On 10/22/2014 10:46 AM, Chris D'Costa wrote:
> Looks great, but how would you resolve the problem of knowing for certain
> that the public key you have received to encrypt the message is not from a
> MITM?
Isn't this the same problem with PGP?
--
Best Regards / S pozdravom,
Pavol Rusnak
-
8 matches
Mail list logo
