Good morning Antoine,
> For "hot contracts" a signature challenge is used to achieve the same. I know
> the latter is imperfect, since
> the lower the uptime risk (increase the number of network monitors) the
> higher the DOS risk (as you duplicate
> the key).. That's why i asked if anybody had
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 10:02:08AM +0100, vjudeu via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Since Taproot was activated, we no longer need separate OP_RETURN outputs to
> be pushed on-chain. If we want to attach any data to a transaction, we can
> create "OP_RETURN " as a branch in the TapScript. In this way, we
> The constants table would be part of the SCRIPT puzzle
Ah I see what you're saying now. You're not talking about referencing
inputs from the spender, but rather constants for the script writer to
parameterize a jet with. TBH I think both would be useful, and both could
potentially be done in
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 8:46 PM Anthony Towns wrote:
> Note that PTLCs aren't really Chia-friendly, both because chia doesn't
> have secp256k1 operations in the first place, but also because you can't
> do a scriptless-script because the information you need to extract
> is lost when signatures
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 10:47 PM Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> To redo the singleton pattern in bitcoin's context, I think you'd have
> to pass in both the full tx you're spending (to be able to get the
> txid of its parent) and the full tx of its parent (to be able to get
> the scriptPubKey that your
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 6:30 AM ZmnSCPxj wrote:
> I am pointing out that:
>
> * We want to save bytes by having multiple inputs of a transaction use the
> same single signature (i.e. sigagg).
>
> is not much different from:
>
> * We want to save bytes by having multiple inputs of a transaction
Good morning Billy,
> > I think we would want to have a cleanstack rule at some point
>
> Ah is this a rule where a script shouldn't validate if more than just a true
> is left on the stack? I can see how that would prevent the non-soft-fork
> version of what I'm proposing.
Yes.
There was
Good morning Bram,
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 6:30 AM ZmnSCPxj wrote:
>
> > I am pointing out that:
> >
> > * We want to save bytes by having multiple inputs of a transaction use the
> > same single signature (i.e. sigagg).
> >
> > is not much different from:
> >
> > * We want to save bytes by
Good morning aj et al.,
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 03:06:43AM +, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> > > > They're radically different approaches and
> > > > it's hard to see how they mix. Everything in lisp is completely
> > > > sandboxed,
> > > > and that functionality is important to a lot
