Author: Peter Todd 2022-04-10 19:32:52
Published on: 2022-04-10T19:32:52+00:00
In a thread on the Bitcoin-Dev mailing list, Jeremy Rubin discusses the concept of "pinned" transactions in relation to blockchain and whether they constitute progress. He argues that pinned transactions prevent progress by adversarial workers while enabling progress through sponsoring, however, Peter Todd asserts that using such terminology is misleading in the blockchain environment and suggests using straightforward terms instead. Rubin also mentions OpenTimestamps and its lack of output chain, saying that it does not use CheckSequenceVerify. Todd clarifies that one transaction with all pending commitments would be preferable to two separate ones for a given set of commitments which need timestamping.
Updated on: 2023-06-03T07:07:39.298313+00:00