On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 03:22:54PM -0500, James O'Beirne wrote:
> > I don't think that makes sense? With a general scheme, you'd only be
> > bloating the witness data (perhaps including the witness script) not
> > the scriptPubKey?
> Sorry, sloppy language on my part. To be charitable, I'm talking
Thanks for the thoughtful reply AJ.
> I don't think that makes sense? With a general scheme, you'd only be
> bloating the witness data (perhaps including the witness script) not
> the scriptPubKey?
Sorry, sloppy language on my part. To be charitable, I'm talking about
the "figurative sPK," which
On 2023-01-10 00:06, Peter Todd wrote:
Remember, we'd like decentralized coinjoin implementations like
Joinmarket to
work. How does a decentralized coinjoin implement "conflict
monitoring"?
1. Run a relay node with a conflict-detection patch. Stock Bitcoin Core
with -debug=mempoolrej will
Forwarding in some conceptual feedback from the pull request.
>From ariard:
> I've few open questions, like if the recovery path should be committed
with a signature rather than protected by a simple scriptpubkey preimage.
That's something I've wondered about too. I have to ruminate on AJ's good
Greg explained his suggestion to me off-list, and I think it's a good one.
To summarize, consider the normal "output flow" of an expected vault use:
(i) output to be vaulted
=> (ii) OP_VAULT output
=> (iii) OP_UNVAULT "trigger" output
=> (iv) final output
In my existing draft implemen
On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 11:07:54AM -0500, James O'Beirne via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> But I also found proposed "general" covenant schemes to be
> unsuitable for this use. The bloated scriptPubKeys,
I don't think that makes sense? With a general scheme, you'd only be
bloating the witness data (perhaps
On 2023-01-09 22:47, Peter Todd wrote:
How do you propose that the participants learn about the double-spend?
Without
knowing that it happened, they can't respond as you suggested.
I can think of various ways---many of them probably the same ideas that
would occur to you. More concise than li
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 12:02:35AM -1000, David A. Harding wrote:
> On 2023-01-09 22:47, Peter Todd wrote:
> > How do you propose that the participants learn about the double-spend?
> > Without
> > knowing that it happened, they can't respond as you suggested.
>
> I can think of various ways---man
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 09:19:39AM +, alicexbt wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> > ## How Full-RBF Mitigates the Double-Spend DoS Attack
> >
> > Modulo tx-pinning, full-rbf mitigates the double-spend DoS attack in a very
> > straightforward way: the low fee transaction is replaced by the higher fee
> >
On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 09:11:46PM -1000, David A. Harding wrote:
> On 2023-01-09 12:18, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > [The quote:]
> >
> > "Does fullrbf offer any benefits other than breaking zeroconf
> > business
> > practices?"
> >
> > ...has caused a lot of confusion by imply
10 matches
Mail list logo
