Well, if anything my question may bolster your use-case. If there's a
heavier chain that is invalid, I kind of doubt it matters for timestamping
reasons.
/digression
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Riccardo Casatta <
riccardo.casa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2017-08-28 18:13 GMT+02:00 Greg
Is there any reason to believe that you need Bitcoin "full security" at all
for timestamping?
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Riccardo Casatta via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> the Bitcoin headers are probably the most condensed and important
random_hash_connected_to_A` by `H(A
|| x) )`
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Jochen Hoenicke <hoeni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21.08.2017 20:12, Greg Sanders via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > To fix this I consulted with andytoshi and got something we think works
> > for both cases:
> >
&
Some related thoughts and suggestion for an extension that kanzure
suggested I post here:
Hardware Wallet attacks by input ownership omission and fix
--
So a while back I realized that to have HW wallets do safe
See https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0150.mediawiki and
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0151.mediawiki
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> This study was released last week, detailing some
> Besides that, I also just don't believe that UASF itself as a method to
activate softforks is a good choice. The only two reliable signals we have
for this purpose in Bitcoin are block height (flag day) and standard miner
signaling, as every other metric can be falsified or gamed.
UASF can be
Interesting work.
I was wondering if you could tell us what specs for the machine being used
as preliminary benchmark is here: https://bitcrust.org/results ?
I'd be interested to also see comparisons with 0.14 which has some
improvements for script validation with more cores.
On Fri, Apr 7,
I'd appreciate the authors chiming in, but I read the PASDA differently:
1) If a transaction is mined with a certain bit set, it reserves 700 bytes
for that particular block.
2) In that space, 2 transactions may happen:
a) First, a transaction penalizing the "parent" transaction for fraud by
That's BIP30, he linked BIP34:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L3004
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Can you tell me where it is enforced?
>
> The only place I found was here;
>
Note that the 4MB number comes from a single network metric.
Quotes directly from the paper in question:
http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf
>Our results hinge on the key metric of effective throughput in the overlay
network, which we define here as which blocks propagate within an
BIP125 is the standard way to signal:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0125.mediawiki
Should explain everything you need.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Police Terror via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Where can I find the rules on
101 - 111 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
