On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 9:32 AM Billy Tetrud wrote:
> > Bitcoin doesn't have a strong single concept of a 'parent'
>
> I'm using the term "parent" loosely in context here to mean a relationship
> where an input has constraints applied to an output (or outputs).
>
Yes and I'm using it more
> the **only** material distinction (and the one that we are discussing)
is activation with or without majority hash power support
I agree that characterization specifically is not moot. But its also
orthogonal to the topic of the CTV opcode itself.
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 4:03 PM wrote:
> >
> Bitcoin doesn't have a strong single concept of a 'parent'
I'm using the term "parent" loosely in context here to mean a relationship
where an input has constraints applied to an output (or outputs).
> verify the secure hash chain from its parent to itself so that it knows
what the parent
The name of the fund should ideally unambiguously clarify its scope, i.e.,
Bitcoin & development. So maybe “Bitcoin Developers Community LDF”. Or
perhaps “Bitcoin Technical Community LDF” which nicely abbreviates to
BTCLDF.
Zac
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 19:49, jack via bitcoin-dev <
Dear Sir,
Regarding your message
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-December/019636.html
Specifically the part
*"Right now, lightning anchor outputs use a 330 sats amount. Each
commitment*
*transaction has two such outputs, and only one of them is spent"*
I was wondering
