Do away with Bitcoin For Good

[milesmearsParticipant]

<br> Why are you worried about Bitcoin? Why are there 17 native segwit versions? And on trampoline, I think that, again, people expressed interest in implementing trampoline, but I’m still waiting to see if this actually catches on, because many people are interested, but it still doesn’t seem to meet the bar for implementation in the short term. But the current LN as of today is 100% penalty-based, and it doesn’t seem like it’s going to change much. 30:22 Diego Zuluaga: How much privacy users of central bank digital currency would get is another open question. Rubin suggests that this would eliminate many problems with CPFP and RBF fee bumping related to contract protocols where two or more users shared ownership of a UTXO, or other cases where the use of presigned transactions meant the current network feerates couldn’t have been known when the transaction was signed in the past. 8. Contract setting up. It makes it hard to debug, it’s something where we had a lot of compatibility bugs over the years, and it created a lot of force close a few years ago because there were compatibility issues when many updates were in flight, and just because that protocol was complex to get right.<br>>
And if you add one more than that, my only option is to force close basically. So, they basically allow heavy users, sort of regular customers, access to more resources, and that will basically ensure that the peers that your node always interacts with and continues to have a good relationship with, continue to be able to send, even if a new user that hasn’t established themselves starts taking a lot of resources. And even then, if they do jam, it’s no worse than what they could have done if we hadn’t reserved some of the resources for our regular customers in the first place. It’s sort of like how Bitcoin nodes all do their individual check of the blockchain and enforce all of the rules locally, because they have absolutely no reason to trust another peer that that peer did the work and is truthfully reporting the data to them, instead of just doing it themselves locally. Currently in Lightning, either channel peer can propose a new commitment transaction at any time, and this can be simplified by introducing this notion of tur<br>k<br>.
Mark Erhardt: I guess you could sell that or share that, but it’s not clear to me why any other peer or network participant should trust you to have accurate information. And even working groups per features, it’s not really enough. But to be honest, everyone’s feeling, I think, was that we’re not a big enough team of people actually working seriously on the specification to be able to split into many working groups. Like, people might not want to just replace the current types of channels with a penalty-list channel. So, it would sort of become a, “He said, she said” situation where, sure, people could have these lists or could claim that certain nodes are better, or make a personal opinion listing of what the best nodes are, but there is no incentive or reason why other peers should trust in. Copies of all published parts of our weekly series on transaction relay, mempool inclusion, and mining transaction selection—including why Bitcoin Core has a more restrictive policy than allowed by consensus and how wallets can use that policy most effectively. NOPS are not allowed to change the stack because previously no operation meant that it does nothing. NOT, which would turn a 0 into a 1. But generally, you would want to – well, you have to handle that 0 element on the stack one wa<br> <br>ther.
But as well, I mean, the biggest one is requirements for something like anyprevout, right? And, Murch, you asked and answered this question, and in your question you noted that usually decisions, like determining the ranges of values for something, involves binary powers of 2, which would point to something like 16 segwit versions or 32 segwit versions, but we have 17 segwit versions. ” Folks may be familiar that the original activation of segwit included introducing native segwit v0 outputs, and that taproot activation was segwit v1, and that potential future soft forks could use other segwit versions as points of extensibility. ● BitGo wallets support taproot: BitGo announced support for both sending from and receiving to taproot outputs using their API. About 97% of the faulty signatures found in the paper are compatible with Maxwell’s Copay hypothesis, and the paper provides plausible explanations for most of the remaining 3% of signatures, indicating that users of modern wallets are probably safe provided they do not continue to use addresses whose bitcoins they spent using earlier vulnerable programs. Hacking cost Polynetwork Finance, a cross-chain DeFi technology, $600M in crypto-asset losses in August 2021. Users can move their tokens between blockchains via polynetwork, a cross-chain interop<br>ility bridge.

[Author]

Posts