MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170223011147.GB905@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20170223011147.GB905@savin.petertodd.org>
From: Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 15:15:17 +0300
Message-ID: <CAE28kUTxc4KPvijiaJQ6M=LDPf_Du1pFdehfTtXtqs0hOtyWTw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c05c09cfa6b60054fa31fe9"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] TXO commitments do not need a soft-fork to be
	useful
Precedence: list

--94eb2c05c09cfa6b60054fa31fe9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

> Something I've recently realised is that TXO commitments do not need to be
> implemented as a consensus protocol change to be useful.


You're slow, Peter. I figured this out back in 2013:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=153662.10

--94eb2c05c09cfa6b60054fa31fe9
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br>=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Something I&#39;ve recent=
ly realised is that TXO commitments do not need to be<br>
implemented as a consensus protocol change to be useful.=C2=A0</blockquote>=
<div><br></div><div>You&#39;re slow, Peter. I figured this out back in 2013=
:</div><div><br></div><div><a href=3D"https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?top=
ic=3D153662.10">https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D153662.10</a><br>=
</div></div></div></div>

--94eb2c05c09cfa6b60054fa31fe9--