Actually, I think it can be calculated a bit smarter using maths (which
unfortunately I'm not very good at...). But I assume it's something like:
```
falsePositiveChances := 0.0
foreach( transaction of transactions) {
falsePositiveChances += (1 / factorial(transaction.Inputs)) * (1 /
fa
That's pretty easy to quantify. I wrote a quick script to grab the last few
blocks, and then shuffle the inputs/outputs before testing if each transaction
is bip69 or not.
The result was 42% of all transactions would accidentally be bip69 when
randomized.
So clearly randomization is a lot more
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 3:52 PM Chris Belcher via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
>
> Thanks for bringing our attention to this important topic.
>
> According to (https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/bip-69-stats) around 60% of
> transaction follow bip69 (possibly just by chance).
A two input randomly ordered trans
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 6:52 PM Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 09:34:39PM +, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > [pubkey]
> > \-[pubkey]&&CSV
> > \-[fancy script]
>
> I think it's possible to do recursive taproot in this manner in a
Thanks for bringing our attention to this important topic.
According to (https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/bip-69-stats) around 60% of
transaction follow bip69 (possibly just by chance).
If its useful, a bitcoin wiki page that tracks wallets which use bip69
can be created. A similar page exists for
