Re: [bitcoin-dev] Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system.

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Jorge Timón wrote: > This is basically what I meant by > > struct hashRootStruct > { > uint256 hashMerkleRoot; > uint256 hashWitnessesRoot; > uint256 hashextendedHeader; > } > > but my design doesn't calculate other_root as it appears in your

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system.

On Dec 9, 2015 5:40 PM, "Gavin Andresen" wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:03 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> I think it would be logical to do as part of a hardfork that moved >> commitments generally; e.g. a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Standard BIP Draft: Turing Pseudo-Completeness

>If it's voting for something consensus, you will need something special. If it's not consensus (ie external) thw voting doesn't have to hit the chain at all. I had in mind voting for something that can't be trusted if done externally: Perhaps BIPs for instance. People would somehow "mark"

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated Witness features wish list

Segregated IBLT I was just wondering if it would make sense when we have SW to also make Segregated IBLT? Segregating transactions from signatures and then tune the parameters such that transactions have a slightly higher guarantee and save a bit of space on the signatures side. IBLT should of