[bitcoin-dev] PSBT global key for network

2019-10-03 Thread Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev
Hey all, I wanted to propose a new key in the global context for BIP174, Partially-Signed Bitcoin Transactions. = Rationale Each signer should make sure that the inputs being referenced in the PSBT exist (with the exception of a Proof-of-Reserves input). In order to do this, it's critical to

Re: [bitcoin-dev] An alternative: OP_CAT & OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK

2019-05-23 Thread Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev
Hi Russell, This is probably a dumb question, but I'd like to get some clarity on your proposal. OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY would pop off a signature, message and pubkey. Presumably, the message would then have to get constructed as part of the Script execution. What would such a message look

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Testnet3 Reest

2018-08-30 Thread Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev
Stupid question time: Why don't we have multiple testnets? On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 3:31 PM Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:58:42PM +0530, shiva sitamraju via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Testnet is now 1411795

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit

2017-04-11 Thread Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev
to close this discussion until there's some indication that more miners would accept segwit as a result of this change. Jimmy On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Jorge Timón <jti...@jtimon.cc> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linu

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit

2017-04-11 Thread Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev
I've changed the proposal so only 8 bits are given to grinding so something like 20 bits are available for signaling. I have to say I'm at a loss here as to what's next? Should I make a new BIP or try to convince the authors of BIP141 to modify their BIP? Could someone inform me on the next part

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit

2017-04-09 Thread Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev
ware with the competitive advantage from >>> having asicboost more intergrated with the sha256d asics too. >>> >>> To reiterate, whether all miners use asicboost or only a subset of >>> them, I remain unconvinced that provides any additional security to >>> the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit

2017-04-08 Thread Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev
rate charts looking "more > secure". > > > On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Jorge Timón <jti...@jtimon.cc> wrote: > > > > > > On 8 Apr 2017 5:06 am, "Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev" > > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: &g

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit

2017-04-08 Thread Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev
Pavel, > I agree. I only wanted to make clear, that the impact would be > significant. Lot of parties would be involved with nonequivalent > starting positions. > > I agree with you. I believe nonequivalent starting positions are the norm in mining, not the exception and hence don't believe this

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit

2017-04-08 Thread Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev
> > > No, it isn't allowed right now. Doing it wouldn't invalidate blocks, but it > would clearly be an attack on the network and cause harm. The same as if > miners were to maliciously mine only empty blocks. > > What's your definition of "allowed" then? Because a miner definitely can mine only

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit

2017-04-08 Thread Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev
ts are licensed freely to everyone). > > Luke > > > On Saturday, April 08, 2017 12:05:16 AM Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > I've gotten feedback from Adam Back that you actually don't need all 32 > > bits in the header for overt ASICBoost, so I'm modifying my propo

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit

2017-04-08 Thread Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev
Pavel, Until all miners update (firmware or hardware), the change encourages > large difference in mining efficiency. And IMO it gives another > advantage to large mining operations in general. > Certainly, there would have to be changes for stratum, pool software, etc. But the monetary

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit

2017-04-07 Thread Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev
Praxeology Guy, Why would the actual end users of Bitcoin (the long term and short term > owners of bitcoins) who run fully verifying nodes want to change Bitcoin > policy in order to make their money more vulnerable to 51% attack? > Certainly, if only one company made use of the extra nonce

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit

2017-04-07 Thread Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev
I've gotten feedback from Adam Back that you actually don't need all 32 bits in the header for overt ASICBoost, so I'm modifying my proposal. Of the 32-bit version field, bits 16 to 23 are reserved for miners, the witness commitment stays as defined in BIP-141 except that it's now required. BIP9