On 7/2/21 11:24 PM, David A. Harding wrote:
> Is there any chance we can take this opportunity to make "h"/"H" the
> preferred aliases? Using "'" in bourne-style shells is very
> annoying[1], and I suspect it's also creating unnecessary complications
> elsewhere.
I've updated the text to use "h".
Yep -- sorry for the confusing notation but seems like you got it. C++
templates have this issue too btw :)
One cool thing is that if you have op_add for arbitrary width integers or
op_cat you can also make a quantum proof signature by signing the signature
made with checksig with the lamport.
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 09:14:39PM +, Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> *** Optionally followed by a single /* or /*' final
> step to denote all direct unhardened or hardened children.
>
> [...]
>
> In the above specification, the hardened indicator ' may be
> replaced with alternative
Good morning Jeremy,
> Dear Bitcoin Devs,
>
> It recently occurred to me that it's possible to do a lamport signature in
> script for arithmetic values by using a binary expanded representation. There
> are some applications that might benefit from this and I don't recall seeing
> it discussed
Dear Bitcoin Devs,
It recently occurred to me that it's possible to do a lamport signature in
script for arithmetic values by using a binary expanded representation.
There are some applications that might benefit from this and I don't recall
seeing it discussed elsewhere, but would be happy for a
I've opened a PR against my own BIPs fork for review:
https://github.com/achow101/bips/pull/3
Andrew
On 6/29/21 11:41 PM, Jeremy wrote:
> Kudos, this is fantastic!
>
> It might be easier, since there is a ton of content here, for you to open up
> some WIP PRs to collect feedback?
> --
>
This was assigned BIP number 86, so the purpose level path will be m/86'
Andrew
On 6/22/21 9:17 PM, Andrew Chow wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I would like to propose a simple derivation path scheme for keys to be
> used in single key Taproot scripts. This is based on BIP 44 so it is
> basically identical
Thanks for the details Raymo. A thought occurred to me. Given the fact that
miners can abuse this system without penalty, it would be useful to be able
to fix this. What if it was possible for the creditor to claw back the
funds even if the cheating transaction was mined instead of the guarantee
