📅 Original date posted:2016-12-10 📝 Original message:On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at ...

Tier Nolan [ARCHIVE] /

npub1g6v…l5wd

2023-06-07 17:54:43

in reply to nevent1q…m8aa

📅 Original date posted:2016-12-10
📝 Original message:On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Something not yet done:
> 1. The new merkle root algorithm described in the MMHF BIP
>

Any new merkle algorithm should use a sum tree for partial validation and
fraud proofs.

Is there something special about 216 bits? I guess at most 448 bits total
means only one round of SHA256. 16 bits for flags would give 216 for each
child.

Even better would be to make the protocol extendable. Allow blocks to
indicate new trees and legacy nodes would just ignore the extra ones. If
Bitcoin supported that then the segregated witness tree could have been
added as a easier soft fork.

The sum-tree could be added later as an extra tree.

> 3. Communication with legacy nodes. This version can’t talk to legacy
> nodes through the P2P network, but theoretically they could be linked up
> with a bridge node
>

The bridge would only need to transfer the legacy blocks which are coinbase
only, so very little data.

> 5. Many other interesting hardfork ideas, and softfork ideas that works
> better with a header redesign
>

That is very true.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161210/f53e0cac/attachment.html>;

Author Public Key

npub1g6vxlp4e0nyhs2dqxxcryztyf5f5hyuaq93nw4r87zcnv0sdsa0qqsl5wd

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 17:54:43

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "31d27920dd05bf9a7507560810dd011aae2fb91aced6581a288814bb09250462", "pubkey": "46986f86b97cc97829a031b03209644d134b939d0163375467f0b1363e0d875e", "created_at": 1686160483, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "e9090fa21a6c66dc37ff7a2b71914f8a3f269069994f08e729100d0adaa5c13f", "", "root" ], [ "e", "e47ffcfbbe3ac3df158129fa667a6c282e64e1f3593596e889f0b27e3ae8a323", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "492fa402e838904bdc8eb2c8fafa1aa895df26438bfd998c71b01cb9db550ff7" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-12-10\n📝 Original message:On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Something not yet done:\n\u003e 1. The new merkle root algorithm described in the MMHF BIP\n\u003e\n\nAny new merkle algorithm should use a sum tree for partial validation and\nfraud proofs.\n\nIs there something special about 216 bits? I guess at most 448 bits total\nmeans only one round of SHA256. 16 bits for flags would give 216 for each\nchild.\n\nEven better would be to make the protocol extendable. Allow blocks to\nindicate new trees and legacy nodes would just ignore the extra ones. If\nBitcoin supported that then the segregated witness tree could have been\nadded as a easier soft fork.\n\nThe sum-tree could be added later as an extra tree.\n\n\n\u003e 3. Communication with legacy nodes. This version can’t talk to legacy\n\u003e nodes through the P2P network, but theoretically they could be linked up\n\u003e with a bridge node\n\u003e\n\nThe bridge would only need to transfer the legacy blocks which are coinbase\nonly, so very little data.\n\n\n\u003e 5. Many other interesting hardfork ideas, and softfork ideas that works\n\u003e better with a header redesign\n\u003e\n\nThat is very true.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161210/f53e0cac/attachment.html\u003e", "sig": "4f88de8a0fdaf588f7ae773bbfb744b75eba5c1ce891fad64d938ea774c683b2697bdccb7d196e85ab6124b243388bcb4fa8ed9b7fc4d8b353228f0fd56cf8a9" }