Re: [bitcoin-dev] Ark: An Alternative Privacy-preserving Second Layer Solution

2023-05-24 Thread adiabat via bitcoin-dev
Hi - thanks for the Ark write up; I have a bunch of questions but here's 2: --- Q1: "Pool transactions are created by ark service providers perpetually every 5 seconds" What exactly happens every 5 seconds? From the 15.44.21-p-1080.png diagram [1], a pool transaction is a bitcoin transaction, wi

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Compact Client Side Filtering for Light Clients

2017-06-19 Thread adiabat via bitcoin-dev
This has been brought up several times in the past, and I agree with Jonas' comments about users being unaware of the privacy losses due to BIP37. One thing also mentioned before but not int he current thread is that the entire concept of SPV is not applicable to unconfirmed transactions. SPV use

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Per-block non-interactive Schnorr signature aggregation

2017-05-10 Thread adiabat via bitcoin-dev
I messed up and only replied to Russel O'Connor; my response is copied below. And then there's a bit more. - Aha, Wagner's generalized birthday attack, the bane of all clever tricks! I didn't realize it applied in this case but looks like it in fact does. applies to this case. It would have

[bitcoin-dev] Per-block non-interactive Schnorr signature aggregation

2017-05-06 Thread adiabat via bitcoin-dev
If / when Schnorr signatures are deployed in a future witness version, it may be possible to have non-interactive partial aggregation of the signatures on a per-block basis. This could save quite a bit of space. It *seems* not to have any security problems but this mailing list is very good at fi

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Committed bloom filters for improved wallet performance and SPV security

2017-01-03 Thread adiabat via bitcoin-dev
Mempool transactions have their place, but "unconfirmed" and "SPV" don't belong together. Only a full node can tell if a transaction may get confirmed, or is nonsense. Unfortunately all the light / SPV wallets I know of show mempool transactions, which makes it hard to go back... (e.g. "why doesn

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Forcenet: an experimental network with a new header format

2016-12-04 Thread adiabat via bitcoin-dev
Interesting stuff! I have some comments, mostly about the header. The header of forcenet is mostly described in Luke’s BIP, but I have made > some amendments as I implemented it. The format is (size in parentheses; > little endian): > > Height (4), BIP9 signalling field (4), hardfork signalling fi

[bitcoin-dev] Requesting BIP assignment; Flexible Transactions.

2016-09-21 Thread adiabat via bitcoin-dev
Hi- One concern is that this doesn't seem compatible with Lightning as currently written. Most relevant is that non-cooperative channel close transactions in Lightning use OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY, which references the sequence field of the txin; if the txin doesn't have a sequence number, OP_CHECK