Daniele Pinna [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2017-04-06 📝 Original message:Can you please not forget ...
📅 Original date posted:2017-04-06
📝 Original message:Can you please not forget to supply us more details on the claims made
regarding the reverse engineering of the Asic chip?
It is absolutely crucial that we get these independently verified ASAP.
Daniele
Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 21:38:31 +0000
> From: Gregory Maxwell <greg at xiph.org>
> To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Inhibiting a covert attack on
> the Bitcoin POW function
> Message-ID:
> <CAAS2fgSTrMjKZVpL4wRidnzTCC9O3OEF=oCnROf1pggz2cDgJA at mail.
> gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 9:37 PM, Gregory Maxwell <greg at xiph.org> wrote:
> > each block MUST either contain a BIP-141 segwit commitment or a
> > correct WTXID commitment with ID 0xaa21a9ef.
> It was just pointed out to me that the proposed ID (which I just
> selected to be above the segwit one) collides with one chosen in
> another non-BIP proposal. This wasn't intentional, and I'll happily
> change the value when I update the document.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170407/6fcc62db/attachment.html>
📝 Original message:Can you please not forget to supply us more details on the claims made
regarding the reverse engineering of the Asic chip?
It is absolutely crucial that we get these independently verified ASAP.
Daniele
Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 21:38:31 +0000
> From: Gregory Maxwell <greg at xiph.org>
> To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Inhibiting a covert attack on
> the Bitcoin POW function
> Message-ID:
> <CAAS2fgSTrMjKZVpL4wRidnzTCC9O3OEF=oCnROf1pggz2cDgJA at mail.
> gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 9:37 PM, Gregory Maxwell <greg at xiph.org> wrote:
> > each block MUST either contain a BIP-141 segwit commitment or a
> > correct WTXID commitment with ID 0xaa21a9ef.
> It was just pointed out to me that the proposed ID (which I just
> selected to be above the segwit one) collides with one chosen in
> another non-BIP proposal. This wasn't intentional, and I'll happily
> change the value when I update the document.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170407/6fcc62db/attachment.html>