Ok, got it. Won't waste anyone's time on terminology pedantism.
The model that I proposed above is simply what *any* correct timestamping
service must do. If OTS does not follow that model, then I suspect whatever
OTS is, is provably incorrect or, in this context, unreliable, even when
servers an
Devs,
One sketch of an idea on how to improve Eltoo like constructions by making
the contract "optically isolated".
Create an output F with:
Amount: A, Key: MuSig(A,B)
Create a second output R with:
Amount: Dust, Key: Musig(A', B')
and sign ratchet updates something like:
Amount: Dust, Key:
ren't looking for
linearization, then the new linearization won't be a breaking change for
old clients, just calendar servers. And new clients can benefit from
linearization.
--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 7:52 AM Peter Todd wrote:
> On
> nonsense marketing
I'm sure the people who are confused about "blockchain schemes as \"world
computers\" and other nonsense
marketing" are avid and regular readers of the bitcoin devs mailing list so
I offer my sincerest apologies to all members of the intersection of those
sets who were confuse
Morning!
>
> For the latter case, CPFP would work and already exists.
> **Unless** you are doing something complicated and offchain-y and involves
> relative locktimes, of course.
>
>
The "usual" design I recommend for Vaults contains something that is like:
{ CSV CHECKSIG, CHECKSIG}
or
{ CSV
opt-in or explicit tagging of fee account is a bad design IMO.
As pointed out by James O'Beirne in the other email, having an explicit key
required means you have to pre-plan suppose you're building a vault
meant to distribute funds over many years, do you really want a *specific*
precommitted
--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 1:39 AM Peter Todd wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 04:38:27PM -0800, Jeremy Rubin wrote:
> > > As I said, it's a new kind of pinning attack, distinct from other types
> > of pinning attac
> As I said, it's a new kind of pinning attack, distinct from other types
of pinning attack.
I think pinning is "formally defined" as sequences of transactions which
prevent or make it less likely for you to make any progress (in terms of
units of computation proceeding).
Something that only incr
That's not really pinning; painning usually refers to pinning something to
the bottom of the mempool whereas these mechanisms make it easier to
guarantee that progress can be made on confirming the transactions you're
interested in.
Often times in these protocols "the call is coming inside the hou
Reminder:
This is in ~24 hours.
There have been no requests to add content to the agenda.
Best,
Jeremy
--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 12:29 PM Jeremy Rubin
wrote:
> Bitcoin Developers,
>
> The 3rd instance of the recurring meeting i
Bitcoin Developers,
The 3rd instance of the recurring meeting is scheduled for Tuesday February
8th at 12:00 PT in channel ##ctv-bip-review in libera.chat IRC server.
The meeting should take approximately 2 hours.
The topics proposed to be discussed are agendized below. Please review the
agenda
11 matches
Mail list logo
