The fact that this is possible should be enough for us to implement
meassures against it.
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017, Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Can you please not forget to supply us more details on the claims made
regarding the reverse engineering of the Asic chip?
It is absolutely crucial that we get these independently verified ASAP.
Daniele
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 21:38:31 +0000
From: Gregory Maxwell <g...@xiph.org>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Inhibiting a covert attack on
the Bitcoin POW function
Message-ID:
<CAAS2fgSTrMjKZVpL4wRidnzTCC9O3OEF=ocnrof1pggz2cd...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 9:37 PM, Gregory Maxwell <g...@xiph.org> wrote:
> each block MUST either contain a BIP-141 segwit commitment or a
> correct WTXID commitment with ID 0xaa21a9ef.
It was just pointed out to me that the proposed ID (which I just
selected to be above the segwit one) collides with one chosen in
another non-BIP proposal. This wasn't intentional, and I'll happily
change the value when I update the document.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
