((This message was originally sent only to ZmnSCPxj and not to the mail list due
to a mistake))
Hi, ZmnSCPxj
> The major difference here is that for PoW, it is impossible to create a "sybil
> attack" where you only need to spin up multiple nodes on AWS containers, each
> with its own
Dear Mr Nucleus, and list,
Some more points:
* Miners in existing Bitcoin are only given the ability to reorder
transactions, but not to outright spend funds.
This is why drivechains --- and recursive covenants, which, with some
additional covenant features (that are more useful in general
Good morning Mr Nuclear,
> You are correct that the design relies on the honest majority assumption.
> However, I disagree that it restricts the usability of the proposal,
> due to the following considerations.
>
> 1. Any distributed system consensus, including bitcoin PoW consensus,
> relies
Dear David,
Thank you very much for your time reading and analyzing the work.
You are correct that the design relies on the honest majority assumption.
However, I disagree that it restricts the usability of the proposal,
due to the following considerations.
1. Any distributed system
On 2023-08-20 16:25, Atomic Mr Nuclear wrote:
Dear community,
In the attachment you will find a new proposal for Lightning multipeer
payment channels
Hi,
Thanks for working on multiparty channel design. Quoting from the
paper:
in case some of the peers become unresponsive, the channel
