[bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin-s 1.8 released with DLCs negotiation via Tor

[Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev]

Hi all,

We released 1.8 today of bitcoin-s. This includes support for opening DLCs
over tor. This makes the UX much simpler to enter into a DLC with your
counterparty.

As part of this release, we wrote two detailed examples of entering into

1. A wallet election example

2. A wallet price example


These are meant to complement the existing oracle examples we have

1. An election oracle example

2. A price oracle example


*This is alpha software, please do not use it for large amounts of money.*

You need a github account to access the downloads, the artifacts are at the
very bottom of the release notes.

https://github.com/bitcoin-s/bitcoin-s/releases/tag/1.8.0

You can find a demonstration video for using the wallet to enter into a DLC
over tor here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR0I0aHxNMM

You can find the dlc spec here:

https://github.com/discreetlogcontracts/dlcspecs

-Chris
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Year 2038 problem and year 2106 chain halting

[yanmaani--- via bitcoin-dev]

Well, it's the right word. If you're going to do a hardfork by changing 
the timestamp definition, you're already doing a hardfork. At that 
point, you've already crossed the Rubicon and might as well put in any 
other necessary changes (e.g. to transaction locking), because it will 
be as much of a hardfork either way.


The important bit here is "as long as it doesn't change anything now" - 
this is indeed a hardfork, but it's a timestamp-activated hardfork that 
triggers in 2106. Until that point, it has absolutely no bearing on 
consensus rules (as opposed to the other proposals, which are at least a 
soft-fork today).


I understand that there's some problems in getting consensus for forks, 
but surely we can agree that everyone will update their Bitcoin at least 
once in the next 85 years? (If they don't, they're doomed anyway.)


On 2021-10-17 15:46, Kate Salazar wrote:

Hi yanmaani


...

This is a hardfork, yes, but it's a hardfork that kicks in way into
the
future. And because it's a hardfork, you might as well do anything,
as
long as it doesn't change anything now.


"Anything" is quite a word.
Ideally, hard fork requires upgrading every node that can be upgraded,

or at least have the node operator's consent to lose the node (for
every
node that can't be upgraded).


...

___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Year 2038 problem and year 2106 chain halting

[damian--- via bitcoin-dev]

Good Afternoon,

I am certain that as soon as we identify solutions they should be 
implemented. Basic life skills assert that procrastination is always a 
form of failure, where we could have realised and accomplished further 
yet we waited and in our present state could not ascertain what was in 
our benefit.


KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
duigco.org DUIGCO API
and other projects


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this 
email if misdelivered.

On 2021-10-15 08:27, James Lu via bitcoin-dev wrote:

Making Bitcoin function after 2038 is by definition a hard fork

I feel if we do HF, we should bundle other HF changes with it...

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 5:19 PM vjudeu via bitcoin-dev
 wrote:


It seems that Bitcoin Core will stop working in 2038 because of
assertion checking if the current time is non-negative. Also, the
whole chain will halt after reaching median time 0x in 2106.
More information: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5365359.0

I wonder if that kind of issues are possible to fix in a soft-fork
way. ___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev