I can't remember who I saw discussing this idea. Might have been Vitalik
Buterin?
Yes, he described it in an article a couple of months ago:
http://blog.ethereum.org/2014/01/15/slasher-a-punitive-proof-of-stake-algorithm/
but it is an old idea.
For example, I've mentioned punishment of this
Someone who wanted to remain anonymous sent me in this idea, which I'll
admit I'm kicking myself for not having thought of earlier. They sent
me this hash so they can claim credit for it later should they choose to
reveal their identity:
There is a discussion about clarifying how BIP70 signs payment requests
here:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/41
The issue is what to do with the signature field before signing. The code
Mike and I initially wrote does this:
request.set_signature(string());
(sets signature to the
On 27/04/2014 02:05 p.m., Mark Friedenbach wrote:
On 04/27/2014 05:36 AM, Sergio Lerner wrote:
Without invoking moon math or assumptions of honest peers and
jamming-free networks, the only way to know a chain is valid is to
witness the each and every block. SPV nodes on the other hand,
Who cares what it is? Setting to an empty byte array is fine, IMO. The
payment protocol is already rolling out. It's implemented in several
wallets, BitPay implements it, Coinbase is implementing it, etc.
-10 for changing such a basic thing at this point. It'd cause chaos for
the early
On 04/28/2014 07:32 AM, Sergio Lerner wrote:
So you agree that: you need a periodic connection to a honest node, but
during an attack you may loose that connection. This is the assumption
we should be working on, and my use case (described in
Agreed with Mike. It doesn't really matter what the signature field is
set to. Changing the standard now is too hard with too little benefit.
On 4/28/14, 12:14 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
Who cares what it is? Setting to an empty byte array is fine, IMO. The
payment protocol is already rolling out.
7 matches
Mail list logo
