On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 11:28:36AM +, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Subject: Turing-Completeness, And Its Enablement Of Drivechains
> And we have already rejected Drivechains,
That seems overly strong to me.
> for the following reason:
> 1. Sidechain validators and mainchain miners
Good morning Paul, welcome back, and the list,
For the most part I am reluctant to add Turing-completeness due to the
Principle of Least Power.
We saw this play out on the web browser technology.
A full Turing-complete language was included fairly early in a popular HTML
implementation,
At the moment it is indisputable that a particular satoshi cannot be
proven, an amount of Bitcoin is a bag of satoshi's and no-one can tell
which ones are any particular ones **so even if you used the system of
ordinals privately, and it might make interesting for research, I cannot
see that
Well done, your bip looks well presented for discussion.
Thank you!
You say to number each satoshi created? For a 50 BTC block reward that is
> 5,000,000,000 ordinal numbers, and when some BTC is transferred to another
> UTXO how do you determine which ordinal numbers, say if I create a
>
Well done, your bip looks well presented for discussion. You say to
number each satoshi created? For a 50 BTC block reward that is
5,000,000,000 ordinal numbers, and when some BTC is transferred to
another UTXO how do you determine which ordinal numbers, say if I create
a transaction to pay-to
The least reasonable thing I could expect is some claimed former holder of
some ordianls turning up to challenge me that it was their stolen Bitcoin
was some of what I received.
I think it's unlikely that this would come to pass. A previous owner of an
ordinal wouldn't have any particular
On 2/23/2022 6:28 AM, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev wrote:
... Drivechains is implementable on a Turing-complete
language.
And we have already rejected Drivechains, for the following reason:
1. Sidechain validators and mainchain miners have a strong incentive to
merge their businesses.
2.
Good morning Antoine,
> TLUV doesn't assume cooperation among the construction participants once the
> Taproot tree is setup. EVICT assumes cooperation among the remaining
> construction participants to satisfy the final CHECKSIG.
>
> So that would be a feature difference between TLUV and
Subject: Turing-Completeness, And Its Enablement Of Drivechains
Introduction
Recently, David Harding challenged those opposed to recursive covenants
for *actual*, *concrete* reasons why recursive covenants are a Bad Thing
(TM).
Generally, it is accepted that recursive covenants,
