On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 12:12:24AM -0400, Antoine Riard wrote:
> "Talk is cheap. Show me the code" :p
> case OP_MERKLESUB:
I'm not entirely clear on what your opcode there is trying to do. I
think it's taking
MERKLESUB
and checking that output N has the same scripts as the current
Good morning Filippo,
> Hi!
>
> From the proposal it is not clear why a miner must reference other miners'
> shares in his shares.
> What I mean is that there is a huge incentive for a rogue miner to not
> reference any share from
> other miner so he won't share the reward with anyone, but it
> Huh? Why would the goal be to match mainnet? The goal, as I understand it, is
> to allow software to
use SigNet without modification *to make testing simpler* - keep the
header format the same to let
SPV clients function without (significant) modification, etc. The
point of the whole thing is
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:24:15AM -0700, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I'm [...] suggesting [...] that the existing block producers each
> generate a new key, and we then only sign reorgs with *those* keys.
> Users will be able to set a flag to indicate "I want to accept sigs
> from
Fwiw, your email client is broken and does not properly quote in the plaintext copy. I believe this
is a known gmail bug, but I'd recommend avoiding gmail's web interface for list posting :).
On 9/10/21 12:00, Michael Folkson wrote:
Huh? Why would the goal be to match mainnet? The goal, as I
On 9/10/21 06:05, Michael Folkson wrote:
I see zero reason whatsoever to not simply reorg ~every block, or as often as
is practical. If users opt in to wanting to test with reorgs, they should be
able to test with reorgs, not wait a day to test with reorgs.
One of the goals of the default
> I see zero reason whatsoever to not simply reorg ~every block, or as often as
> is practical. If users opt in to wanting to test with reorgs, they should be
> able to test with reorgs, not wait a day to test with reorgs.
One of the goals of the default Signet was to make the default Signet
Hi!
>From the proposal it is not clear why a miner must reference other miners'
shares in his shares.
What I mean is that there is a huge incentive for a rogue miner to not
reference any share from
other miner so he won't share the reward with anyone, but it will be paid
for the share that he
Hi AJ,
Thanks for finally putting the pieces together! [0]
We've been hacking with Gleb on a paper for the CoinPool protocol [1]
during the last weeks and it should be public soon, hopefully highlighting
what kind of scheme, TAPLEAF_UPDATE_VERIFY-style of covenant enable :)
Here few early
On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 12:26:37PM -0700, Jeremy wrote:
> I'm a bit skeptical of the safety of the control byte. Have you considered the
> following issues?
> If we used the script "0 F 0 TLUV" (H=F, C=0) then we keep the current
> script, keep all the steps in the merkle path (AB and
10 matches
Mail list logo
