[bitcoin-dev] Ivy: a higher-level language targeting Bitcoin Script

Today, we’re releasing Ivy, a prototype higher-level language and development environment for creating custom Bitcoin Script programs. You can see the full announcement here , or check out

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Ivy: a higher-level language targeting Bitcoin Script

could help to > resolve for it's users one of the things that can make Bitcoin scripts more > complicated to write, instead of simply type-checking and providing a > high-level language mapped 1-to-1 with Bitcoin script. > > > On December 18, 2017 8:32:17 PM UTC, Daniel Robi

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Possible change to the MIT license

Custom open-source licenses are basically never a good idea. Every deviation in wording from universally-accepted open-source licensing terms is a major compliance headache from the perspective of any organization trying to use the software. You don’t want users having to clear their use of Bitcoin

Re: [bitcoin-dev] DPL is not only not enough, but brings unfounded confidence to Bitcoin users

> > Because if not, the DPL is still better than the status quo. Agreed. Also worth noting that it has a potential advantage over unilateral patent disarmament, analogous to the advantage of copyleft licenses over MIT/BSD: it provides an incentive (at least a theoretical one) for other companies

Re: [bitcoin-dev] DPL is not only not enough, but brings unfounded confidence to Bitcoin users

First, non-practicing entities are definitely a problem, but they're far from the only companies involved in software patent litigation. As you say yourself, one reason companies obtain patents is to "prevent competition"—meaning they produce a competing product. Look at the billion-dollar lawsuits

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Implementing Covenants with OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY

Really cool! How about "poison transactions," the other covenants use case proposed by Möser, Eyal, and Sirer? (I think OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY will also make it easier to check fraud proofs, the other prerequisite for poison transactions.) Seems a little wasteful to do those two "unnecessary"

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Inhibiting a covert attack on the Bitcoin POW function

I think you're misreading Luv. He's defending the idea of blocking covert ASICBOOST, not defending ASICBOOST. On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 11:16 AM Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Luv Khemani via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > > >