On 26/07/2019 10:38, Dmitry Petukhov via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> If the attacker is the entity who provides this 'maker outsourcing',
> and it captures significant portion of that maker-outsourcing/utxo-rent
> market, it can even receive some profit from the convenience fee, while
>
On 27/07/2019 20:34, David A. Harding wrote:
>
> Timelocking bitcoins, especially for long periods, carries some special
> risks in Bitcoin:
>
> 1. Inability to sell fork coins, also creating an inability to influence
> the price signals that help determine the outcome of chainsplits.
>
> 2.
Hi All,
I would like to propose some types that allow for BIP 174 PSBT to be
extended more in the future.
Firstly, I would like to propose that some types be reserved for
proprietary use. These proprietary use types are, in general, for
private use by individuals and organizations who want to
Hi all,
I would like to propose that a "moving checkpoint" is added to the Bitcoin
protocol. It's a very simple rule already implemented in NXT coin:
- A node will ignore any new block under nodeBlockHeight - N, so the blockchain
becomes truly immutable after N blocks, even during a 51% attack
On Wednesday 31 Jul 2019 12:28:58 Kenshiro [] via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I would like to propose that a "moving checkpoint" is added to the Bitcoin
> protocol. It's a very simple rule already implemented in NXT coin:
>
> - A node will ignore any new block under nodeBlockHeight - N, so the
>
Hi,
On 7/31/19 12:19 PM, Dmitry Petukhov wrote:
>
> I think private formats should have at least a basic format: they
> should start with a prefix. This way different prviate formats can be
> distinguished by this prefix, and there will be no risk of
> unintentional confusion.
>
> Private types
On Wednesday 31 Jul 2019 14:53:25 Kenshiro [] wrote:
>> How would a (potentially, state-sponsored) netsplit lasting longer than
>> N be handled?
>
> It would be detected by the community much before reaching the reorg limit
> of N blocks (it's 24 hours) so nodes could stop until the netsplit is
>
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:27:17PM +0100, Chris Belcher wrote:
> And any ECC-alternative or hash-function-alternative fork will
> probably take a couple of months to be designed, implemented and
> deployed as well, giving a chance for lockers to move coins.
Probably. A stronger form of my
>>> How would a (potentially, state-sponsored) netsplit lasting longer than N be
handled?
It would be detected by the community much before reaching the reorg limit of N
blocks (it's 24 hours) so nodes could stop until the netsplit is fixed.
In the extreme case no one notice the network split
hello,
On 31. 07. 19 3:13, Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Lastly, I would like to propose the canonical method for mult-byte
> types. We designate a specific type to indicate that the type is
> multiple bytes. When such types are observed, parsers should move onto
> the next byte and
В Tue, 30 Jul 2019 22:39:14 +0100
Chris Belcher via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> This is where a sacrifice of V bitcoins creates a
> bond of value V^2. The formula provides a strong incentive for
> profit-motivated makers to use all their fidelity bond coins with just
> one maker, not spread them out
В Wed, 31 Jul 2019 01:13:46 +
Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Firstly, I would like to propose that some types be reserved for
> proprietary use. These proprietary use types are, in general, for
> private use by individuals and organizations who want to use PSBT in
> their processes.
P.S.: To be clearer, in this example I set an N value of 144 blocks, which is
approximately 24 hours.
From: Kenshiro []
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 16:40
To: Alistair Mann ; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to
13 matches
Mail list logo
