Active Discussions

Greg Maxwell addressed concerns on witness programs for Bitcoin soft forks.

He highlighted differences in rules for witness programs, citing BIPs 141 and 341.

Maxwell criticized choosing witness versions by mnemonics, emphasizing technical constraints.

The discussion analyzes the economic impact of redistributing or creating new digital currency coins.

Both actions dilute existing coins' value by increasing the active supply, reducing purchasing power.

A preference for redistributing lost coins over creating new ones raises ethical and complexity issues.

The proposal suggests locking vulnerable coins against quantum threats, enabling future use.

Temporary transaction restrictions aim to prevent permanent losses, ensuring future fund recoverability.

It discusses ethical and technical issues, including the impact on heirs and P2QRH address concerns.

An innovative approach focuses on Bitcoin security against quantum threats without specifying PQ signatures.

Suggests using "Pay to TapScript Hash" and borrowing from SPHINCS for quantum-resistant strategies.

Proposes a new address format, P2QRH, for transitioning to quantum-safe addresses before PQ opcodes are defined.

The email discusses managing payment failures in blockchain, distinguishing infeasible payments from failures.

It notes risks of approaches like peerswaps on overall network health, emphasizing liquidity management.

A collaborative approach for optimized liquidity among nodes is suggested as beneficial for network stability.

An attacker aims to jam a communication channel between A and B using M1 and M2.

Jamming the channel for two weeks costs approximately 8,000 satoshis.

The costs and mechanics of maintaining the jam with minimal transaction value are questioned.