Good Morning,
The Bitcoin you are spending must exist in compliance with consensus
so, if the details are obscured then it is not possible for me to
accept your Bitcoin, to say I refuse. Otherwise, it is not possible for
me to see immutably that they exist all the way to coin genesis, they
could
ednesday, 17 March 2021 3:11 PM
To: DA Williamson
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion ; LORD
HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
Good morning JAMES,
> Good Afternoon,
>
> Verifiable and independantly verifiable are not the same. Independantly
> scrutina
n
Cc: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH ; R E Broadley
; Eric Voskuil
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
> It's incredible how this troll keeps trolling and the list (bitcoin-dev !!)
> keeping attention
>
> Good troll, really
Depending on topic raised, it may be useful to a
Good morning,
> Good afternoon,
>
> That is not desirable since yourself and I cannot prove the property of the
> UTXO when it is further spent unless we can ourselves scrutinize it.
What property *needs* to be proven in the first place?
I suspect you are riding too much on your preferences
> If you actually believe the operation of consensus and the discussion
> relevant to that is a mundane or philosophical dissection of people's ability
> to grasp a humorous while on-topic but obligatorily unnecessary conversation
> you may prefer if you enquire how Bitcoin is
> It's incredible how this troll keeps trolling and the list (bitcoin-dev !!)
> keeping attention
>
> Good troll, really
Depending on topic raised, it may be useful to at least answer the troll
naively as if it were an honest question, if only so that third parties reading
do not get
Good morning JAMES,
> Good Afternoon,
>
> Verifiable and independantly verifiable are not the same. Independantly
> scrutinable means any public can scrutinise blockchain to determine it
> is honest. It does not rely on involved parties but insistently on the
> data published in the blockchain.
Good Afternoon,
Verifiable and independantly verifiable are not the same. Independantly
scrutinable means any public can scrutinise blockchain to determine it
is honest. It does not rely on involved parties but insistently on the
data published in the blockchain. The accepted case of P2SH is also
illiamson
>
>
> m. 0487135719
> f. +61261470192
>
>
> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this
> email if misdelivered.
>
> *From:* bitcoin-dev on
> behalf of Eric Voskuil via
Good morning JAMES,
> No-one has yet demonstrated that Conjoin or using Wasabi wallet is secure if
> it relies on third-parties. Are the transaction not forwarded partially
> signed as with an SPV wallet? So it is possible the SPV server cannot
> redirect funds if dishonest? SPV wallets are
d this
email if misdelivered.
From: bitcoin-dev on behalf of
Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev
Sent: Saturday, 13 March 2021 9:30 AM
To: R E Broadley ; Bitcoin Protocol
Discussion
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
I’m pretty sure it’s subtle mockery. Even a
I’m pretty sure it’s subtle mockery. Even a legit title doesn’t warrant
additional attention.
e
> On Mar 12, 2021, at 14:02, R E Broadley via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>
> Can I just point out (to those addressing James as Lord/Excelency/etc
> that he isn't noble nor a Lord, so just wanted to
>> www.willtech.com.au
>> www.go-overt.com
>> and other projects
>>
>> earn.com/willtech
>> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>>
>>
>> m. 0487135719
>> f. +61261470192
>>
>>
>> This email does not constitute a general advice.
not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this
> email if misdelivered.
> --
> *From:* bitcoin-dev on
> behalf of Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, 6 March 2021 1:04 AM
> *To:* Bitcoin P
v on behalf of
Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev
Sent: Saturday, 6 March 2021 1:04 AM
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 8:48 PM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
bitcoin-dev wrote:
> My concern was that the more complex scripts allow obfusca
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 8:48 PM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
bitcoin-dev wrote:
> My concern was that the more complex scripts allow obfuscation of the Pay To
> address
This is no different from options available in P2SH, or from the
obfuscation achieved by generating a new address for a
@voskuil.org
Sent: Wednesday, 3 March 2021 10:55 PM
To: 'LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH' ; 'Bitcoin Protocol
Discussion'
Cc: 'Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces'
Subject: RE: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
> and all transactions should be open to the scrutiny of an honest government.
From what do you d
misdelivered.
From: Thomas Hartman
Sent: Thursday, 4 March 2021 1:32 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH ; Bitcoin Protocol
Discussion
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
“all transactions should be open to the scrutiny of an honest government”
I agree with this. Howev
>
>
>
> m. 0487135719
> f. +61261470192
>
>
> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email
> if misdelivered.
> From: Eric Voskuil
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 9:37 AM
> To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH ; Bitcoin Protoco
misdelivered.
From: Erik Aronesty
Sent: Thursday, 4 March 2021 1:49 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH ; Bitcoin Protocol
Discussion
Cc: Daniel Edgecumbe
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
taproot does not enable anything that cannot already be done today.
it only enables larger and
mail
> if misdelivered.
> ________
> From: bitcoin-dev on behalf
> of Daniel Edgecumbe via bitcoin-dev
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 12:16 PM
> To: M.K. Safi via bitcoin-dev
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>
> Any "transparency
From: bitcoin-dev on behalf
> of Felipe Micaroni Lalli via bitcoin-dev
>
> Sent: Thursday, 4 March 2021 3:30 AM
> To: e...@voskuil.org ; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
>
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>
> Dear LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH), a.k.a.
m:* bitcoin-dev *On
> Behalf Of *LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 2, 2021 7:06 PM
> *To:* M.K. Safi via bitcoin-dev ;
> Daniel Edgecumbe
> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>
>
>
> "Today I spent approximately $
day, March 2, 2021 7:06 PM
To: M.K. Safi via bitcoin-dev ; Daniel
Edgecumbe
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
"Today I spent approximately $5 at a chip shop in North London in cash. Besides
the fact that I have voluntarily chosen to share this information, it is
absolutely no
arch 2021 10:56 PM
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
The idea of a fully-transparent bitcoin is dead and has been for many
years. This is because of various privacy tech such as CoinJoin,
Lightning Network, PayJoin, change avoidance, avoiding addres
d this email if
misdelivered.
From: Eric Voskuil
Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 9:37 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH ; Bitcoin Protocol
Discussion
Cc: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “
general advice. Please disregard this email if
misdelivered.
From: bitcoin-dev on behalf of
Daniel Edgecumbe via bitcoin-dev
Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 12:16 PM
To: M.K. Safi via bitcoin-dev
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
Any "transparency
e & British Empire
>> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
>> Wills
>>
>> et al.
>>
>>
>> Willtech
>> www.willtech.com.au
>> www.go-overt.com
>> and other projects
>>
>> earn.com/willtech
>> linkedin.com/in/damianwil
; HMRH)
> > of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> > MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> > Wills
> >
> > et al.
> >
> >
> > Willtech
> > www.willtech.com.au
> > www.go-overt.com
> > and other projects
> >
&
lliamson
> Wills
>
> et al.
>
>
> Willtech
> www.willtech.com.au
> www.go-overt.com
> and other projects
>
> earn.com/willtech
> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>
>
> m. 0487135719
> f. +61261470192
>
>
> This email does not constitute a g
s not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this
>email if misdelivered.
>________________
>From: Jeremy
>Sent: Sunday, 28 February 2021 3:14 AM
>To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH ; Bitcoin
>Protocol Discussion
>Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>
&
ry 2021 3:14 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH ; Bitcoin Protocol
Discussion
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
I have good news for you: Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features
any moreso than already exist in Bitcoin today. At its core, taproot is a way
to make tran
I have good news for you: Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy
features any moreso than already exist in Bitcoin today. At its core,
taproot is a way to make transactions with embedded smart contracts less
expensive, done so in a manner that may marginally improve privacy
dependent on user
Good Afternoon,
It has been reported that Taproot will enable some Monero like features
including the ability to hide transactions.
If that is the case I offer a full NACK and let me explain.
A part of the benefit of using Bitcoin is its honesty. The full transaction is
published on the
34 matches
Mail list logo
