• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

For this reason, https://youtu.be/JTibhw1GNSE Bitcoin Core limits1 the maximum number and size of related transactions. In that spirit I will be uploading some hard core abandonware. Both will be optional, but both can become the default for normal onchain wallets. The new desc fields are not expected to be particularly useful at the moment as they can currently only be used with the scantxoutset RPC, but they will provide a compact way of providing all the information necessary for making addresses solvable to future and upgraded RPCs for Bitcoin Core such as those used for interactions between offline/online (cold/hot) wallets, multisig wallets, coinjoin implementations, and other cases. The Bitcoin Core project is planning to start tagging release candidates for maintenance version 0.17.1 soon. ● Bitcoin Core is preparing for upcoming maintenance release 0.17.1. Maintenance releases include bugfixes and backports of minor features. This is expected to resolve some bugs with build system incompatibilities on recent Linux distributions as well as fix other minor issues.

● Releases: LND 0.5.1 is released as a new minor version with improvements particularly focused on its support for Neutrino, a lightweight wallet (SPV) mode that LND can work with to make LN payments without having to directly use a full node. This week’s newsletter describes a proposal to tweak Bitcoin Core’s relay policy for related transactions to help simplify onchain fees for LN payments, mentions upcoming meetings about the LN protocol, and briefly describes a new LND release and work towards a Bitcoin Core maintenance release. UNSAFE, and briefly describes a proposal to simplify fee bumping for LN commitment transactions. This accompanies a proposal for LN described in the News section of last week’s newsletter where LN would mostly ignore onchain fees (except for cooperative closes of channels) and use CPFP fee bumping to choose the fee when the channel was closed-reducing complexity and improving safety. To help solve this problem, Matt Corallo has suggested a change to the CPFP policy to carve-out (reserve) some space for a small transaction that only has one ancestor in the mempool (all of its other ancestors must already be in the block chain).

If someone wanted to mess with the historical record of transactions, he or she would have to not only alter the block containing the transaction but also build out all the blocks that followed it in an effort to replace the existing shared ledger. UNSAFE. A signature hash is the data committed to by a signature in a transaction. Search engines generally create an index of data by finding information that's stored on Web sites and other online resources. This improves the node’s chance of recovering from a connectivity problem combined with partial data loss. This merge fixes the problem by disabling the feature if a node is offline for too long. This release also fixes an accounting bug for users of the btcwallet backend where not all change payments to yourself may have been reflected in your displayed balance. 2214 fixes a remote crash bug which could lead to loss of funds.

This fixes a problem where the node was miscalculating fees. Anyone intending to take this version is encouraged to review the list of backported fixes and help with testing when a release candidate is made available. Normally the hash commits to a list of which coins are being spent, which scripts are receiving the coins, and some metadata-but it’s possible to sign only some of the transaction fields in order to allow other users to change your transactions in specific ways you might find acceptable (e.g. for layer-two protocols). We’re as excited about Lightning, Schnorr signatures, Taproot/Graftroot and scriptless scripts as any other Bitcoin engineers, but the project’s focus is on technology that can be deployed by companies today. ● Simplified fee bumping for LN: funds in a payment channel are protected in part by a multisig contract that requires both parties sign any state in which the channel can close. But for users of multiparty protocols, a malicious counterparty can exploit the limits to prevent an honest user from being able to fee bump a transaction. First, the transaction fee is included in the hash in order to allow hardware wallets or offline wallets to ensure they aren’t being tricked into sending excess fees to miners.