SIGHASH_BUNDLE
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-April/015862.html
By cycles I meant that if you commit to the sponsors by TXID from the
witness, you could "sponsor yourself" directly or through a cycle involving
> 1 txn.
With OP_VER I was talking about the proposal I l
Hmm, I don't know anything about SIGHASH_BUNDLE. The only references
online I can find are just mentions (mostly from you). What is
SIGHASH_BUNDLE?
> unless you're binding a WTXID
That could work, but it would exclude cases where you have a transaction
that has already been partially signed and
Eric, Luke
Can I request that you don't discuss activation methods for future soft forks
on a thread for CTV BIP review? I (and a number of others [0]) do not support
an upcoming activation attempt of standalone OP_CTV. If you want to discuss
activation methods for soft forks generally it would
Hey Jeremy,
> On the topic of drafting BIPs for specific use cases, I agree that would
be valuable and can consider it.
> However, I'm a bit skeptical of that approach overall as I don't
necessarily think that the applications *must be* standard, and I view BIPs
as primarily for standardization wh
> because you make transactions third party malleable it becomes possible
to bundle and unbundle transactions.
What I was suggesting doesn't make it possible to malleate someone else's
transaction. I guess maybe my proposal of using a sighash flag might have
been unclear. Imagine it as a script o
I see, its not primarily to make it cheaper to append fees, but also allows
appending fees in cases that aren't possible now. Is that right? I can
certainly see the benefit of a more general way to add a fee to any
transaction, regardless of whether you're related to that transaction or
not.
How w
> That day is nowhere near IMO and maybe we won't see it in my lifetime.
I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that maybe bitcoin needs
to move faster now than it should in the future, and the cost of having the
community remain vigilant against harmful changes is worth the extra spee
> 'assert that my parent has a scriptpubkey of X'... That way you can, for
example, have a UTXO which only allows itself to be absorbed by a
transaction also involving a UTXO with a particular capability
I'm not sure I fully follow. I usually think about covenants as having the
reverse form, that
