On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 06:39:34PM +, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Covenants on bitcoin will eventually be implemented with a soft fork.
That's begging the question. The issue is whether we should allow such
soft forks, or if the danger of losing coins to covenants and thus
losing
Good evening ZmnSCPxj,
Interesting attempt.
>a * G + b * G + k * G
Unfortunately I don't think this qualifies as a commitment, since one could
trivially open the "commitment" to some uncommitted value x (e.g. a is set
to x and b is set to a+b-x). Perhaps you were thinking of Pedersen
> On Jul 18, 2022, at 14:14, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> subsidy to directly tie miner revenue to the total value of Bitcoin
>> makes it not exactly how we want to incentivise a service that keeps
>>
>
> again, this is meaningless. if the fees aren't enough to
>
>
> subsidy to directly tie miner revenue to the total value of Bitcoin
> makes it not exactly how we want to incentivise a service that keeps
>
>
again, this is meaningless. if the fees aren't enough to keep bitcoin
secure for large transactions, then large holders are incentivised to mine
On 2022-07-10 07:27, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
The block subsidy directly ties miner revenue to the total value of
Bitcoin:
that's exactly how you want to incentivise a service that keeps Bitcoin
secure.
I'm confused. I thought your argument in the OP of this thread was that
a
