Hi everyone,
As some of you know, I am working on a complete open source replacement of
Bitpay for allowing merchant to accept cryptocurrency payments while having
a way to sell automatically.
A crucial, missing part, is fiat conversion. And I figured out a simple
protocol that exchanges (or adap
For what it’s worth, I think it would be quite easy to do better than the
implied solution of rejiggering the message signing system to support non-P2PKH
scripts. Instead, have the signature be an actual bitcoin transaction with
inputs that have the script being signed. Use the salted hash of th
On 08/12/17 19:25, Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I know there are posts, and an issue opened against it, but is there
> anyone writing a BIP for Sign / Verify message against a SegWit address?
Dan, are you still planning to write this BIP?
--
Best Regards / S pozdravom,
Pavol "stick" Rusn
Thank you Gregory,
so SegWit P2PHK have strictly less weight than P2WPKH, 3 fewer bytes (-1%) no
matter the n. of outputs.
Instead, Segwit P2WPKH/P2SH cost 11% more than P2PHK, while compared to P2SH,
SegWit transaction P2WSH and P2WSH/P2SH cost respectively 6% and 19% more
space. And it can be
Most solutions only work with a single Bitcoin address (terrible for
privacy, and also potentially a security risk) or xpubkey (also terrible
for privacy).
I think the best solution here is some kind of store-and-forward server,
where you trade a little bit of privacy (to the server, that is), but
There is no reason it should not be easily possible to develop a Bitcoin wallet
that has an integrated name to address mapping feature. It might be a good idea
for a software product, it could even be based on Bitcoin Core. There is no
specific reason that people wanting that sort of feature cou
Thank you for your constructive feedback. I now see that the proposal
introduces a potential issue.
>Finally in terms of the broad goal, having block size based on the number of
>transactions is NOT something desirable in the first place, even if it did
>work. That’s effectively the same as an
Thank you for your constructive feedback. I now see that the proposal
introduces a potential issue.
It is difficult to define then, what is a valid transaction? Clearly, my
definition was insufficient.
Regards,
Damian Williamson
From: Chris Riley
Sent: Mon
