Good morning Paul,
> On 2/26/2022 9:00 PM, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
>
> > ...
> >
> > > Such a technique would need to meet two requirements (or, so it seems to
> > > me):
> > > #1: The layer1 UTXO (that defines the channel) can never change (ie, the
> > > 32-bytes which define the
On 2/26/2022 9:00 PM, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
...
Such a technique would need to meet two requirements (or, so it seems to me):
#1: The layer1 UTXO (that defines the channel) can never change (ie, the
32-bytes which define the p2sh/tapscript/covenant/whatever, must stay
what-they-were when the
On 2/27/2022 11:59 AM, Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev wrote:
@Paul
> I think largeblocksidechainsshould be reconsidered:
> * They are not a blocksize increase.
This is short sighted. They would absolutely be a blocksize increase
for those following a large block sidechain. While sure, it
@Paul
> I think largeblock sidechains should be reconsidered:
> * They are not a blocksize increase.
This is short sighted. They would absolutely be a blocksize increase for
those following a large block sidechain. While sure, it wouldn't affect
bitcoin users who don't follow that sidechain, its
`OP_FOLD`: A Looping Construct For Bitcoin SCRIPT
=
(This writeup requires at least some programming background, which I
expect most readers of this list have.)
Recently, some rando was ranting on the list about this weird crap
called `OP_EVICT`, a
