Re: [bitcoin-dev] Rolling UTXO set hashes

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 4:01 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: > To be clear, *none* of the previous (U)TXO commitment schemes require *miners* > to participate in generating a commitment. While that was previously thought > to > be true by many, I've

Re: [bitcoin-dev] TXO commitments do not need a soft-fork to be useful

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 03:15:17PM +0300, Alex Mizrahi via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Something I've recently realised is that TXO commitments do not need to be > > implemented as a consensus protocol change to be useful. > > > You're slow, Peter. I figured this out back in 2013: > >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] TXO commitments do not need a soft-fork to be useful

> Something I've recently realised is that TXO commitments do not need to be > implemented as a consensus protocol change to be useful. You're slow, Peter. I figured this out back in 2013: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=153662.10 ___

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Rolling UTXO set hashes

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:59:58PM +, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:04 PM, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > transactions is in the header, which would let lite nodes download a UTXO > > set from any full node