Dr Maxim Orlovsky [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2023-06-03 🗒️ Summary of this message: Bitcoin PoW ...
📅 Original date posted:2023-06-03
🗒️ Summary of this message: Bitcoin PoW Anchoring protocol reset allows for a special bitcoin transaction providing publically-identifiable OP_RETURN information about a new miner single-use-seal.
📝 Original message:Hi John,
Thank you for the question. We have discussed this case in the paper, second paragraph of the “Bitcoin PoW Anchoring” Section:
> If a party spends current miner single-use-seal without creating a commitment - or committing to a header without sufficient PoW, such closing is considered invalid; in this case, any party is allowed to create a special bitcoin transaction providing publically-identifiableOP_RETURNinformation ("announcement") about a new miner single-use-seal (protocol reset); only the firstOP_RETURNannouncement which is closed with a proper procedure is considered valid under the consensus rules.
Kind regards,
Maxim Orlovsky
On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 4:30 PM, John Tromp via bitcoin-dev <[bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org](mailto:On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 4:30 PM, John Tromp via bitcoin-dev <<a href=)> wrote:
>> The white paper describing the proposal can be found here:
>> https://github.com/LNP-BP/layer1/
>
> Some questions about the Bitcoin PoW anchoring:
>
> What if a miner spends the current miner single-use-seal while
> creating a commitment, but makes the PMT only partially available, or
> entirely unavailable ?
>
> How do other miners reach consensus on whether a protocol reset is
> required? It seems impossible to agree on something like PMT
> availability (much like mempool contents).
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230603/283cc020/attachment.html>;
🗒️ Summary of this message: Bitcoin PoW Anchoring protocol reset allows for a special bitcoin transaction providing publically-identifiable OP_RETURN information about a new miner single-use-seal.
📝 Original message:Hi John,
Thank you for the question. We have discussed this case in the paper, second paragraph of the “Bitcoin PoW Anchoring” Section:
> If a party spends current miner single-use-seal without creating a commitment - or committing to a header without sufficient PoW, such closing is considered invalid; in this case, any party is allowed to create a special bitcoin transaction providing publically-identifiableOP_RETURNinformation ("announcement") about a new miner single-use-seal (protocol reset); only the firstOP_RETURNannouncement which is closed with a proper procedure is considered valid under the consensus rules.
Kind regards,
Maxim Orlovsky
On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 4:30 PM, John Tromp via bitcoin-dev <[bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org](mailto:On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 4:30 PM, John Tromp via bitcoin-dev <<a href=)> wrote:
>> The white paper describing the proposal can be found here:
>> https://github.com/LNP-BP/layer1/
>
> Some questions about the Bitcoin PoW anchoring:
>
> What if a miner spends the current miner single-use-seal while
> creating a commitment, but makes the PMT only partially available, or
> entirely unavailable ?
>
> How do other miners reach consensus on whether a protocol reset is
> required? It seems impossible to agree on something like PMT
> availability (much like mempool contents).
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230603/283cc020/attachment.html>;