Daira-Emma Hopwood
Daira-Emma Hopwood
There is currently a conflation in the draft document between the confirmation depth that should be used for input TXO selection when constructing a transaction, and the confirmation depth that...
@str4d wrote: > @daira wrote: > > For a transaction that needs an anchor, is it ever beneficial to enforce a higher confirmation depth when choosing inputs (shielded or not)...
These were all calculated for my Zcon3 presentation ([slides here](https://github.com/daira/zcash-security)).
Remember to update the `[#sigop-limit]` reference in ZIP 317 when this is fixed.
Closing. I will open a PR to move the ZIP from Reserved to Withdrawn.
The same issue applies to the Orchard Action statement I think.
Switching to KaTeX (#432) would probably fix this.
This works for me on Debian in Atril, Okular, and Firefox's PDF plugin. Please re-test it with the latest version of the spec. (In any case there wouldn't be much...
There should probably be tests for this behaviour; currently `tests/noexcept.cpp` is a placeholder. One possible way of testing it is to add a hook for the termination behaviour (like I...
Note that a *payment* is another word for a shielded output. There can be multiple payments and multiple inputs in a transaction. Is the intent here to disclose *all* inputs...