On Saturday, October 01, 2016 4:01:04 AM Rusty Russell wrote: > Prefer a three-arg version (gbits-to-compare, blocknum, hash): > - If <bits> is 0 or > 256, invalid. > - If the hash length is not (<bits> + 7) / 8, invalid.
This means zero padding on-chain, which would be undesirable. Rather "at most" and have the consensus implementation do the padding. > - If the hash unused bits are not 0, invalid. Why? > - Otherwise <bits> of hash is compared to lower <bits> of blockhash. Lower in what endian? Why only that endian? Why only lower? I can see a possible use case where one wants to look at only the high bits to ensure their transaction is only valid in a block with at least a certain difficulty... > This version also lets you play gambling games on-chain! > > Or maybe I've just put another nail in CBAH's coffin? Or maybe resurrected it... Luke _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
