1 2017-03-01 00:45:37 <praxeology> Hi.  Are my latest two emails stuck in the bitcoin-dev email list moderator queue because the moderator rarely checks it?  Or...?  I submitted like 8 hours ago.  Sorry not very familiar with the development process around here...  finding it hard to communicate.
 2 2017-03-01 00:47:40 <luke-jr> "rarely"
 3 2017-03-01 00:48:26 <praxeology> I feel like the one about the UTXO Checkpoints w/ commitments is really good...
 4 2017-03-01 00:49:06 <praxeology> and I'm excited to see what the guys think about it
 5 2017-03-01 00:51:57 <praxeology> Basically I think I found a good way to do the UTXO commitment & all the good things that come with it like: trustworthy startup from a checkpoint instead of the genesis block, and allowing nodes to verify their computer didn't glitch the utxo, and more safely pruning
 6 2017-03-01 00:59:14 <praxeology> Here's my proposal, at least for the commitment part, which depends on the Checkpoint part that is in a brainstorming closed github issue.  http://pastebin.com/4VX60z9j
 7 2017-03-01 00:59:50 <praxeology> And here is the UTXO Checkpoint issue : https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9885
 8 2017-03-01 01:00:46 <praxeology> As long as my proposal sounds reasonable I'm willing to start working on it right away
 9 2017-03-01 01:01:35 <praxeology> But I want feedback on whether you guys think it will work, any gotcha I overlooked
10 2017-03-01 03:20:45 <praxeology> my computer took a nap... did anyone respond to my request for review while I was asleep?
11 2017-03-01 09:24:32 <maybefbi> can the difficulty be less than the genesis block? can the target be higher than the genesis block?
12 2017-03-01 09:31:35 <arubi> not on mainnet
13 2017-03-01 09:53:54 <maybefbi> arubi, is this target valid on the mainnet: 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000100
14 2017-03-01 09:54:11 <maybefbi> i get it when the bits is 0xff00ffff
15 2017-03-01 09:54:46 <maybefbi> oops i mean 0xff0001
16 2017-03-01 09:55:08 <maybefbi> i meant 0xff000001
17 2017-03-01 09:57:03 <maybefbi> im trying to find the edge cases of my bits to target algorithm
18 2017-03-01 10:07:27 <arubi> I don't think it is, no
19 2017-03-01 10:07:52 <maybefbi> ok thanks
20 2017-03-01 10:10:42 <maybefbi> arubi, do all people on the bitcoin network use the same target? i hear pools dont use the flanking 000000s at the end of the target. they like the higher targets with the flanking fffffffffs because it is easier to hash under something so high
21 2017-03-01 10:11:46 <arubi> I don't know the reason why there difference exist.  there's one correct way to interpret bits and the hash should be below that target
22 2017-03-01 10:12:41 <maybefbi> arubi, so the flanking 0s at the LSBs are part of the target?
23 2017-03-01 10:19:28 <arubi> maybefbi, I don't understand the question, sorry.  I actually don't know why target is calculated the way it is, or why pools use a slightly different value
24 2017-03-01 10:21:31 <maybefbi> ok
25 2017-03-01 15:47:17 <praxeology> Still looking for feedback on my Synchronization Checkpoints "https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9885" (plus "http://pastebin.com/xhKeXdwg" to make it actually work)
26 2017-03-01 18:37:30 <arubi> so re. bad sighash type for MASTv0, it appears that SIGHASHV2 is a thing now: https://github.com/jl2012/bitcoin/blob/mast_v3_161017/qa/rpc-tests/test_framework/script.py#L949-L964 , so that probably explains the error
27 2017-03-01 19:08:31 <arubi> if anyone can make sense of it, I'd appreciate the input (hehe).  I can see it follows the same scheme as v1(current) sighash algorithm, but I can't figure out what e.g. ALL would look like appended to a signature.  maybe it
28 2017-03-01 19:08:42 <arubi> 's the full 4 bytes now?  can't tell
29 2017-03-01 20:58:03 <arubi> I think you're supposed to push a signature as '<64 bytes r><64 bytes low s><4 bytes minimally encoded sighash>' where the fist byte can't be 0x00.  seems like I'm at /least/ getting actual verification to fail now :)
30 2017-03-01 21:26:58 <arubi> er, not 64 and not 4, 32 and 2.  I'm too used to Words..