[bitcoin-dev] Signet: static genesis block, and dynamic message start

2020-03-04 Thread Karl-Johan Alm via bitcoin-dev
Hello, I am proposing a modification to BIP-325 to make the genesis block static and to rely on the message start to avoid collision between signets when multiple nets exist simultaneously: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/900 ___ bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hash function requirements for Taproot

2020-03-04 Thread ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev
Good morning LL, Thank you very much for this work, it seems quite interesting. > 5. You can completely circumvent this result by using coin-tossing rather > than MuSig for the key generation protocol. In most cases this doesn't even > add any extra rounds of communication since you are doing

Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: Kicking BIP-322 (message signing) into motion

2020-03-04 Thread Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
In addition to starting with proof-of-funds instead of proof-of-receiver, it would be nice to integrate with Taproot somehow or another. Perhaps OP_MESSAGEONLY is the most straightforward way to do this? It might be a good idea to have a message type after the opcode too. On Wednesday 04 March

[bitcoin-dev] Hash function requirements for Taproot

2020-03-04 Thread Lloyd Fournier via bitcoin-dev
Hi List, I recently presented a poster at the Financial Cryptography conference '2020 which you can find here: https://github.com/LLFourn/taproot-ggm/blob/master/main.pdf. It attempts to show the security requirements for the tweak hash function in Taproot. In this post I'll give a long