-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Velvet fork #29
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Velvet fork #29
Conversation
paper/sections/velvet-fork.tex
Outdated
the Bitcoin community. However, a velvet fork can also serve the purposes of | ||
our client by utilizing part of the auxiliary bytes of the coinbase | ||
transaction. As a result, our proposed client can be used without the need of | ||
adjusting the size of block headers; In fact, recent |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
no capitalization after semicolon
the MMR root. However, since the verification of proofs is constant to the size | ||
of the blocks under the optimistic scheme we adopt, the added cost will also be | ||
constant. We thus claim that our client remains efficient under a velvet fork | ||
as the gas usage will only be increased by a constant factor. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This constant factor may be large due to velvet fork security assumptions (m needs to be adjusted to account for this fact). Hence, this may make our implementation for velvet forks inefficient. In fact, the exact constants are not even known theoretically, only asymptotically. I suggest we are a bit more conservative on this claim.
Co-authored-by: Kostis Karantias <[email protected]>
From hard fork to velvet fork