Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 088B7C0029 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2023 13:31:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C160742425 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2023 13:31:07 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org C160742425 Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20221208 header.b=ee2A1ij7 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fteay2jLFMjc for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2023 13:31:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org B5E0F423F4 Received: from mail-oo1-xc36.google.com (mail-oo1-xc36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c36]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5E0F423F4 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2023 13:31:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oo1-xc36.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-557c9d7011aso2299275eaf.1 for ; Sat, 03 Jun 2023 06:31:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1685799064; x=1688391064; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=MldfKwC1m0rKEL9zMcsCfdGRNW+2i49DB4c1eZURAhY=; b=ee2A1ij75bNS/ued/Ioq56hS9G9h9dZtwjoYKVrwNVLD5hV1TBdkR/4c7uyFrLnnPe YE3LaiSrbLIxbLv7zqxN4q6M5YzpM92JTUXXlRn/QcAeu6vwkLo/yaoHgYZv6HsNTVBl BzQjcNOpnvZJWU8F3EDnAoxYKjXqgee75ys8PMTgJH4vF+ZvBPchGDhGkx5an4Ht+kFi iuTVph0mVKcVixuJyzfp027Bf7c6oCGXIwh4es/1uzIkdrjrFCa3zV2aZG+IBEs6rtw5 ULPQZ7jS9ZTFTYu9cp1GkV3K6dcsdvN0lHBNhxdZY96aE2/QE22KgPX2dw5b62NB5Czg xXGg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1685799064; x=1688391064; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=MldfKwC1m0rKEL9zMcsCfdGRNW+2i49DB4c1eZURAhY=; b=d8q49zg4CkHqCNtCiNHui9hzuAxnmdDeZxPCIr3Fboc67D1yhOtGBfG161fWKOM3mH IW33grY5LWJV4TevEPEM/OVs3QBHkEnpzL2xe0buQOO00eiNOmPB2jUllGd7OEUbRZJO CQ0fQrk+AC2QvawDlAls0nimcwso29w+x3OISMoBFrU1zam86cjp2CaN89s5/PcmTsYh WOefGrJUwx+FqEAWe0koPX6JE/9ik6H/TkG3U9UVHN5WGgh+zXUyGek0OXVU85thIZjS gPA1kb5eOacuug8O2vKEKhwee6JF8qDydUVAT0HdEPXUmuKFgj///6E74AvPMuYGIoaZ sCYQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDw0BSbmud4MvjfVHkRKaoXfHleKpHTnNh6VWpJ9y9Q8OwDl3N3/ Q9HbWwnikbijt7Z5O7iofzbZpGj91T/NdYN1VBARmDarnQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ4D5aylsgdH9oPOiCsHsPOCTLZ59UWGLm6jLNJwk0RN7Hu7aH5LS9fVkKVIxx9zW43B3GvRrWixsGNd+3VPakc= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:41c3:0:b0:546:dd51:f74f with SMTP id x186-20020a4a41c3000000b00546dd51f74fmr4748082ooa.4.1685799064603; Sat, 03 Jun 2023 06:31:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: John Tromp Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2023 15:30:53 +0200 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 03 Jun 2023 13:51:18 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling and anonymizing Bitcoin at layer 1 with client-side validation X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2023 13:31:08 -0000 > 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).