Re: [bitcoin-dev] Schnorr signatures BIP

Over chat it has been pointed out to me that computing the non-quadratic residue is not the same cost as computing a quadratic residue. As pointed out in footnote 7 of the the proposed BIP, c^((p+1)/4) is always a quadratic residue and must be negated to find the non-quadratic residue. In light

[bitcoin-dev] Claiming an OP_RETURN Prefix

Hi everyone, My name's Lautaro and I'm currently acting as Tech Lead of Po.et . At Po.et we use colored coins

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Claiming an OP_RETURN Prefix

Sorry for the confusion. We're doing coloured coins — storing the "POET" prefix followed by an IPFS hash in the output and storing the full data in IPFS. Would you point me to the current work on BIP 160 or the authors? El dom., 5 de ago. de 2018 a la(s) 23:05, Luke Dashjr escribió: > Are you

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Claiming an OP_RETURN Prefix

On August 5, 2018 9:11:26 PM UTC, Lautaro Dragan via bitcoin-dev wrote: >Hi everyone, > >My name's Lautaro and I'm currently acting as Tech Lead of Po.et >. At Po.et we >use >colored coins

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Claiming an OP_RETURN Prefix

Thanks Peter for your prompt reply. And now that I think of it you're right - as easy as it is for us to differentiate OP_RETURN outputs that contain the Po.et prefix it would be for miners to block those transactions altogether. Is this what you mean? Still, a prefix is something we may have to

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Claiming an OP_RETURN Prefix

Don't worry about claiming it. There are no reserved prefixes enforced by the software. For example anyone could create an output that uses the witness coinbase commitment prefix bytes. It would just be ignored (unless it was in the coinbase, in which case it would also need to be valid). On Sun,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Claiming an OP_RETURN Prefix

Are you doing coloured coins or storing data? If the former, you should probably collaborate with the authors of BIP 160 (yet to be added to the main repo), and/or write a new BIP if BIP 160 is insufficient for some reason. If the latter, you just shouldn't do it at all. Note that BIPs need

[bitcoin-dev] Capping the size of locators [trivial protocol change BIP]

Coinr8d posted on bct that the node software would process large locators limited only by the maximum message size yet sensible usage of locators only results in messages of log2(n_blocks) size. He was concerned that it might be a DOS vulnerability but quick measurements indicated to me that it