On Saturday 11 January 2020 14:42:07 Anthony Towns wrote:
> the UASF approach had significant potential technical problems
> (potential for long reorgs, p2p network splits) that weren't
> resolved by the time it became active.
Long reorgs, only for old nodes, were a possibility,
I am not sure that this particular task should be done with data
embedded in PSBT itself, and not with some sort of container that
includes PSBT and the authentication information.
The benefit seems to be in reusing PSBT structure for compatibilty, and
this might be a valid way, although I do not
## Background
PSBT files in transit are at risk of MiTM changes. This isn't
supposed to matter, but as another layer of defence, I would like
to add two signatures to PSBT files when they are processed by the
PSBT Signer. These additional fields would be optional, and should
pass through existing
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 09:30:09PM +, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 1) a standard BIP 9 deployment with a one-year time horizon for
> activation with 95% miner readiness,
> 2) in the case that no activation occurs within a year, a six month
> quieting period during which the community
