> If we ban "arbitrary data", however you want to define it, then actors will
> simply respond by encoding their data within sets of public keys. Public
> key data is indistinguishable from random data, and, unless we are willing
> to pad the blockchain with proof of knowledge of secret keys,
> The white paper describing the proposal can be found here:
> https://github.com/LNP-BP/layer1/
Some questions about the Bitcoin PoW anchoring:
What if a miner spends the current miner single-use-seal while
creating a commitment, but makes the PMT only partially available, or
entirely
> Right now the total reward per transaction is $63, three orders of magnitude
> higher than typical fees.
No need to exaggerate; this is only two orders of magnitude higher
than current fees, which are typically over $0.50
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
> There's only one coin whose expected (soft) emission time is larger
> than bitcoin's, and it's about an order of magnitude larger, at 50
> years.
Make that two coins. For DOGE it is 33 years.
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
> The emission curve lasts over 100 years because Bitcoin success state
> requires it to be entrenched globally.
It effectively doesn't. The last 100 years from 2040-2140 only emits a
pittance of about 0.4 of all bitcoin.
What matters for proper distribution is the shape of the emission
curve.
A parallel discussion is taking place at
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5405755.0
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> New blog post:
> https://petertodd.org/2022/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationary
A Tail Emission is best described as disinflationary; the yearly
supply inflation steadily decreases toward zero.
> Dogecoin also has a fixed reward
It started out with random rewards up to 1M doge per
On Fri, 6 May 2022 7:17PM Jorge Tim?n wrote
> But let's not personally attack andreas for his opinions.
> The only reason you don't like bip8 is because you're ignorant about it and
> you haven't reviewed it enough.
Can you see the irony in equating "clueless about BIP119" with a
personal attack
> Alternately, one possible softforkable design would be for Bitcoin to
> maintain a non-CT block (the current scheme) and a separately-committed CT
> block (i.e. similar to how SegWit has a "separate" "block"/Merkle tree that
> includes witnesses).
> When transferring funds from the legacy
Re: Floating-Point Nakamoto Consensus (bitcoin ml)
>
> This is a pretty big departure from cumulative POW.
It's still cumulative. But instead of cumulating network difficulty,
they cumulate log_2(solution difficulty).
So if two solutions are found simultaneously, and one has a hash
that's only
> However, my understanding is that, at least with the original
> mimblewimble.txt from Jedusor, the signatures and the
> Pedersen-commitment-to-0 could all be aggregated into a single signature and
> Pedersen-commitment-to-0, if we were to use Schnorr-like signatures.
Non-interactive
11 matches
Mail list logo
