I've sent this on Feb 7th, a month ago, but just realized it doesn't show up in
the mailing list archives. Re-sending.
Since then, there's obviously been more research activity. I'm working on APIs
and then some basic way to build transactions, which would be a first skeleton
for a wallet.
A while ago I had a chat with Andrew in
https://gitter.im/grin_community/Lobby where he helped explain multi
signature transactions to me, and I thought it might benefit others as
well to explain the atomic swap below in more detail.
So the setting is that Igno holds some coins on the MW
I'm fine with 2 Merkle trees. Seems like there won't be much that's non-witness
in the kernel though.
- Igno
P.S. Loving all the mailing list activity today :)
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Mimblewimble] Compact blocks
Local Time: March 7, 2017 11:24 AM
UTC Time: March 7,
From: moaningmyr...@protonmail.com
It should be sufficient for the output and its rangeproof to be separately
committed to the chain to prevent ambiguity. Committing to rangeproofs, which
are witness data and can be ignored (at a trust tradeoff), will reduce
flexibility.
This is a good point.
It should be sufficient for the output and its rangeproof to be separately
committed to the chain to prevent ambiguity. Committing to rangeproofs, which
are witness data and can be ignored (at a trust tradeoff), will reduce
flexibility.
This is a good point. I'm not opposed to the rangeproof
On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 10:42:14PM +, Andrew Poelstra wrote:
>
> Pieter Wuille in particular has stressed to me what a great feature of MW it
> is
> that everything looks the same, and that breaking this property should be
> taken
> very seriously.
>
In this line of thinking, I gave a
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:51:57PM -0500, John Tromp wrote:
>
> One comparison in each case; kernel.locktime >= blockindex
>
> So the costs are small, but better avoided altogether I agree.
>
> Can you elaborate on how to prove that the third privkey is indeed
> equal to base^{2^largenumber} ?
7 matches
Mail list logo
