Author: Mark Friedenbach 2015-12-09 08:46:31
Published on: 2015-12-09T08:46:31+00:00
The email thread discusses the idea of a soft-fork to put a commitment in the most efficient spot possible, which could be used for other data such as the merged mining auxiliary blocks. The generation of the commitment transaction would be easy, requiring either the coinbase txid 100 blocks back or the commitment txid of the prior transaction. The truncation shouldn't be an issue because the commitment txn would not be part of the list of transactions selected by GBT. It is suggested that moving commitments generally should be done as part of a hardfork, along with better positioning for merged mining, room for commitments to additional block back-references for compact SPV proofs, and/or UTXO set commitments. The requirements for these applications are not yet well defined, so it is logical to wait until they are before implementing the hardfork.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T01:41:01.892489+00:00