[Bitcoin-ml] Partial UTXO tree as commitment
ctpacia at gmail.com
Sat Sep 9 02:36:01 UTC 2017
I think if you only allowed one tree reorg per N (2016?) blocks that
might be good enough.
On 09/07/2017 03:30 AM, Tomas via bitcoin-ml wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017, at 23:51, Chris Pacia via bitcoin-ml wrote:
>> You'd need to consider the impact on selfish mining. Seems like if there
>> could be something to game there by creating a block that increases the
>> buckets then creating the next one that decreases it, etc. Maybe mining
>> on the header would mitigate that and let the chain move forward but it
>> seems worth analyzing.
> Yes. Good point. It may be better not to allow shrinking. That is, to
> enforce that the bucketcount is always at least the bucketcount of the
> previous block.
> bitcoin-ml mailing list
> bitcoin-ml at lists.linuxfoundation.org
More information about the bitcoin-ml