On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:12 PM, Russell O'Connor
wrote:
>
> and there are probably other designs for signature aggregation beyond the
> two designs I'm discussing here.
>
For example, in private communication Pieter suggested putting the
aggregate signature data into the top of the first segwit
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Matt Corallo
wrote:
> Gah, please no. I see no material reason why cross-input signature
> aggregation shouldn't have the signatures in the first n-1 inputs replaced
> with something like a single-byte push where a signature is required to
> indicate aggregation,
Hi ZmnSCPxj,
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:32 PM, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
>What ensures that a paper money with "10 Dollar" on it, is same as 10
coins each with "1 Dollar" on it?
>This is the principle of fungibility, and means I can exchange a paper
with "10 Dollar" on it for 10 coins with "1 Dollar" on it,
Good Morning Chaofan Li,
> The human perception of difference will be eliminated.
> Will your bank tell you whether your balance means coins or paper money?
> If wallets and exchanges only show the total amount of btc rather than btc.0
> and btc.1, there is no human perception difference.
This r
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:54 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:40 PM, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>
> if there were tighter time requirements in the protocol
> miners would address them by running NTP which as
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:40 PM, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Much of Bitcoin operates on the assumption that a majority of miners are
> honest. If 50%+ of miners set their timestamp reasonably accurately (say
> within 10 mins), then the actual t
