On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 09:46:21AM -0400, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> More importantly, AJ's point here neuters anti-covanent arguments rather
> strongly.
>
> On 7/5/21 01:04, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > In some sense multisig *alone* enables recursive covenants: a
Bitcoin Developers,
The 3rd instance of the recurring meeting is scheduled for Tuesday February
8th at 12:00 PT in channel ##ctv-bip-review in libera.chat IRC server.
The meeting should take approximately 2 hours.
The topics proposed to be discussed are agendized below. Please review the
agenda
This meeting was held January 25th, 2022. The meeting logs are available
https://gnusha.org/ctv-bip-review/2022-01-25.log
Please review the agenda in conjunction with the notes:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019807.html
Feel free to make any corrections if
Prayank, thanks for taking the time to inform the wider community.
I just want to clarify to avoid confusion that this is about whether to
open automatic outgoing connections to a peer at addr:port if port is
not 8333. Right now, Bitcoin Core has a very very strong preference
towards peers that
On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 10:30:12AM +0100, Bastien TEINTURIER via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> But do you agree that descendants only matter for DoS resistance then,
> not for miner incentives?
There's an edge case where you're replacing tx A with tx X, and X's fee
rate is higher than A's, but you'd be
