@Zman
> if two people are perfectly rational and start from the same information,
they *will* agree
I take issue with this. I view the word "rational" to mean basically
logical. Someone is rational if they advocate for things that are best for
them. Two humans are not the same people. They have
@Keagan
> we have to have a way (formalized or not) of deciding when the "lesser
experts" in aggregate have better judgement.
I agree. Its certainly convenient for development speed to limit the number
of cooks in the kitchen. But for the largest cryptocurrency in the world,
we're going to have
Happy to hear that the BIP draft is already useful and thank you, Laolu, for
extracting the test vectors.
> an implementation must make the _pre tweaked_ combined key available to the
caller
To apply the Taproot tweak with the key aggregation algorithm as specified you
would have to do the
Hi Laolu,
> Finally, can you elaborate a bit on this fragment of the BIP that
describes
> a "short cut" when a specific signers is meant to send their nonces last:
>
> > Second, if there is a unique signer who is supposed to send the pubnonce
> > last, it is possible to modify nonce generation
Hi,
This post recalls the noticeable interactivity issue encumbering payment
pools and channel factories in the context of a high number of
participants, describes how the problem can be understood and proposes few
solutions with diverse trust-minizations and efficiency assumptions. It is
Sorry I didn't see this snippet fully earlier, but I caught it in Optech
(cc harding)
> *(I didn't think DROP/1 is necessary here? Doesn't leaving the 32 byte*
> *hash on the stack evaluate as true? I guess that means everyone's
> using**sapio to
> construct the txs?)*
Not quite: it would
On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 01:57:28PM -0700, Jeremy Rubin wrote:
> the 'lots of people' stuff (get confused, can't figure out what i'm
> quoting, actually are reading this conversation) is an appeal to an
> authority that doesn't exist. If something is unclear to you, let me know.
> If it's unclear
CTV and other covenant proposals, tradeoffs, and overlapping features are among
the topics being explored recently. I had some views and questions on this
subject.:
a) Does bitcoin already have opcodes with overlapping features? Yes
b) Can we have multiple ways with some overlapping features
Hi Keagan,
The worst case scenario is: no new proposals are accepted and the Bitcoin
remains the same. This is not so bad. I think a bad actor will usually want
to *add* (or remove) something that breaks. I don't know if the boycott of
new proposals is as effective in breaking Bitcoin. It means
@Felipe
> the consensus should follow the current line: discussions and tests
carried out by experts. We all know that the most important devs have the
most weight in discussions. And that's how it should be
We have up til this point been miraculously lucky that the vast majority of
prominent
Back in the 2017 block size wars I brought up the idea [0] of using
time-locked-weighted voting as a mechanism to gauge community/hodler
sentiment (lived on testnet for awhile at https://hodl.voting [1]).
Basically, the user locks up some bitcoins with an OP_CSV while committing
to some statement
11 matches
Mail list logo
