Updated newly generated xml files

static/bitcoin-dev/Nov_2024/m91e5a68b8275a73acdcc8fc2276b9caf678fdab4_Covenants-Support-Bitcoin-Wiki.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
+  <id>0</id>
+  <title>Covenants Support - Bitcoin Wiki</title>
+  <updated>2024-11-30T02:25:47.297992+00:00</updated>
+  <author>
+    <name>/dev /fd0 2024-11-29 14:08:00+00:00</name>
+  </author>
+  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="0.9.0">python-feedgen</generator>
+  <entry>
+    <id>0</id>
+    <title>Covenants Support - Bitcoin Wiki</title>
+    <updated>2024-11-30T02:25:47.298026+00:00</updated>
+    <link href="https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/[email protected]/T/#u#m91e5a68b8275a73acdcc8fc2276b9caf678fdab4" rel="alternate"/>
+    <summary>A new initiative has been launched to gather the opinions of Bitcoin developers on various covenant proposals by creating a draft for a Bitcoin wiki page. This initiative mirrors the approach taken with the SegWit support page, aiming to facilitate consensus building for upcoming soft forks. The wiki page, which can be accessed at [Bitcoin Wiki](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Covenants_support), currently lists a selection of opcodes deemed relevant but is open for further contributions. Developers are encouraged to add more opcodes and share their insights by adding their GitHub usernames alongside their opinions.
+
+The importance of developer input is highlighted by the inclusion of a link to a presentation that outlines the rationale behind supporting OP_CTV (OP_CheckTemplateVerify). This proposal, detailed at [Rationale for OP_CTV](https://notes.dunst.be/slide//2/slide/view/Ekky-cAegV9dSOaNOjH9TStNOmAnrhDDc9hxHlmRs5M/embed/present/), is particularly noted for its potential to enhance pools with covenants, thereby improving implementations of joinstr, such as coinjoin. The sender of this message, identifying themselves humorously as "floppy disk guy," emphasizes the significance of these discussions in simplifying the process towards the next soft fork and underscores the collective effort required to refine and agree upon the most beneficial proposals.</summary>
+    <published>2024-11-29T14:08:00+00:00</published>
+  </entry>
+</feed>

static/delvingbitcoin/Nov_2024/3637_Can-parallel-validation-side-step-the-slow-block-issue-.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
+  <id>1</id>
+  <title>Can parallel validation side-step the slow block issue?</title>
+  <updated>2024-11-30T02:24:13.672914+00:00</updated>
+  <author>
+    <name>evoskuil 2024-11-29 02:24:10.247000+00:00</name>
+  </author>
+  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="0.9.0">python-feedgen</generator>
+  <entry>
+    <id>1</id>
+    <title>Can parallel validation side-step the slow block issue?</title>
+    <updated>2024-11-30T02:24:13.672945+00:00</updated>
+    <link href="https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/can-parallel-validation-side-step-the-slow-block-issue/1288/5" rel="alternate"/>
+    <summary>Implementing a stronger measure to mitigate slow-block attacks poses a significant alteration in behavior during non-attack scenarios, notably making single confirmations considerably less secure. The challenge lies in effectively differentiating between an attack and a non-attack situation. If the script is intrinsically considered an attack, the proposal suggests a softer approach, like a soft fork, to eliminate it. This method aims at addressing the issue without drastically changing the normal operational behavior, ensuring that legitimate activities are not unduly impacted while still providing a solution to the identified problem.</summary>
+    <published>2024-11-29T02:24:10.247000+00:00</published>
+  </entry>
+</feed>

static/delvingbitcoin/Nov_2024/3638_Can-parallel-validation-side-step-the-slow-block-issue-.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
+  <id>1</id>
+  <title>Can parallel validation side-step the slow block issue?</title>
+  <updated>2024-11-30T02:24:09.187266+00:00</updated>
+  <author>
+    <name>evoskuil 2024-11-29 02:33:14.326000+00:00</name>
+  </author>
+  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="0.9.0">python-feedgen</generator>
+  <entry>
+    <id>1</id>
+    <title>Can parallel validation side-step the slow block issue?</title>
+    <updated>2024-11-30T02:24:09.187297+00:00</updated>
+    <link href="https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/can-parallel-validation-side-step-the-slow-block-issue/1288/6" rel="alternate"/>
+    <summary>The discussion centers around the intricacies of blockchain technology, particularly focusing on block validation times and the associated risks. It highlights a statistical probability that underscores the competitive nature of block creation within blockchain networks. Specifically, it outlines that for every second required to validate a block, there exists approximately a 1 in 600 chance that another competing block will emerge. This observation draws attention to the inherent challenges faced by participants in the blockchain network, emphasizing the critical importance of speed and efficiency in block validation processes.
+
+Moreover, the assertion implicitly questions the uniformity assumption regarding the workload of blocks at the same height. It suggests a discrepancy in the conventional understanding that all blocks positioned at an identical level within the blockchain carry the same amount of computational work. This point introduces a nuanced perspective on blockchain dynamics, indicating that variations in block workload could significantly impact the validation process and, by extension, the overall efficiency and security of the blockchain network. This insight not only deepens the understanding of blockchain mechanics but also calls for a more sophisticated analysis of block validation strategies to accommodate the potential differences in workload among equally ranked blocks.</summary>
+    <published>2024-11-29T02:33:14.326000+00:00</published>
+  </entry>
+</feed>

static/delvingbitcoin/Nov_2024/3639_Can-parallel-validation-side-step-the-slow-block-issue-.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
+  <id>1</id>
+  <title>Can parallel validation side-step the slow block issue?</title>
+  <updated>2024-11-30T02:24:01.607993+00:00</updated>
+  <author>
+    <name>ajtowns 2024-11-29 03:45:38.031000+00:00</name>
+  </author>
+  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="0.9.0">python-feedgen</generator>
+  <entry>
+    <id>1</id>
+    <title>Can parallel validation side-step the slow block issue?</title>
+    <updated>2024-11-30T02:24:01.608025+00:00</updated>
+    <link href="https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/can-parallel-validation-side-step-the-slow-block-issue/1288/7" rel="alternate"/>
+    <summary>The advantage large miners have in the blockchain ecosystem is a subject of considerable interest, especially when considering the implications of block reorganization (reorg) risks. The inherent benefit for the miner who successfully mines a block is significant, as they can immediately proceed to mine on top of it, knowing it to be valid. In contrast, other participants must wait for the block to propagate and be validated before they can build upon it. This discrepancy creates a slight edge for the original miner, despite potential losses in transaction fees and the risk associated with building on a potentially invalid block.
+
+The discussion extends to strategies that could mitigate these advantages, such as improving the efficiency of core protocols in handling compact block relays during validation processes. Compact block relay enhancement would allow for quicker propagation of blocks minus the full transaction details that are not yet validated, thereby leveling the playing field somewhat between the original miner and the rest of the network. The role of a well-connected FIBRE relay network is also underscored as a critical component in this ecosystem. FIBRE (Fast Internet Bitcoin Relay Engine), which operates by relaying information based on Proof of Work (PoW) without waiting for transaction validation, could significantly reduce the time advantage currently held by the original block miner if it were more widely available and utilized.
+
+Furthermore, the current state of block relay is hampered significantly by slow validation times, posing a challenge to the network's efficiency and reliability. The concept of prioritizing reorganization based on the speed of validation is introduced, which could inadvertently promote the mining of empty blocks due to variances in hardware performance among different network participants. This approach might lead to increased network instability, highlighting the delicate balance required in optimizing blockchain technology to ensure fairness and efficiency across all users. The implications of these dynamics on blockchain stability, miner competition, and overall network health are profound, warranting further mathematical analysis and technological innovation to address these challenges effectively.</summary>
+    <published>2024-11-29T03:45:38.031000+00:00</published>
+  </entry>
+</feed>

static/delvingbitcoin/Nov_2024/3640_Can-parallel-validation-side-step-the-slow-block-issue-.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
+  <id>1</id>
+  <title>Can parallel validation side-step the slow block issue?</title>
+  <updated>2024-11-30T02:23:52.033082+00:00</updated>
+  <author>
+    <name>sjors 2024-11-29 09:00:41.882000+00:00</name>
+  </author>
+  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="0.9.0">python-feedgen</generator>
+  <entry>
+    <id>1</id>
+    <title>Can parallel validation side-step the slow block issue?</title>
+    <updated>2024-11-30T02:23:52.033115+00:00</updated>
+    <link href="https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/can-parallel-validation-side-step-the-slow-block-issue/1288/8" rel="alternate"/>
+    <summary>The discussion raises concerns about the potential economic impact of reorganizing (reorg) the blockchain more than six blocks deep, highlighting that such an event could cause significant harm compared to a block that takes an unusually long time to validate. The conversation further delves into strategic manipulation by attackers around the retarget period—a phase during which the blockchain network adjusts its difficulty level to maintain a consistent block time. An attacker could exploit this by timing the release of blocks in a manner that maximizes the difficulty increase for honest miners, thereby creating blocks with less cumulative difficulty without external intervention.
+
+The possibility of preemptively addressing attacks through soft forks is mentioned, acknowledging that while feasible, it requires prior knowledge of the attack vectors. This leads to the acknowledgment of "unknown unknowns," or unforeseen challenges, emphasizing the difficulty in preparing for and mitigating such threats.
+
+A proposed solution to mitigate the negative effects of slow-to-validate blocks involves enhancing the core's ability to quickly relay compact blocks—that is, blocks missing transactions—while still in the validation process. This approach aims not to penalize blocks that take longer to validate but rather to reduce their potential to disrupt the network, ensuring smoother operation and less vulnerability to certain types of attacks.</summary>
+    <published>2024-11-29T09:00:41.882000+00:00</published>
+  </entry>
+</feed>

static/delvingbitcoin/Nov_2024/3641_Libbitcoin-for-Core-people.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
+  <id>1</id>
+  <title>Libbitcoin for Core people</title>
+  <updated>2024-11-30T02:22:48.337396+00:00</updated>
+  <author>
+    <name>AntoineP 2024-11-29 14:08:23.249000+00:00</name>
+  </author>
+  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="0.9.0">python-feedgen</generator>
+  <entry>
+    <id>1</id>
+    <title>Libbitcoin for Core people</title>
+    <updated>2024-11-30T02:22:48.337428+00:00</updated>
+    <link href="https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/libbitcoin-for-core-people/1222/13" rel="alternate"/>
+    <summary>During the Initial Block Download (IBD) phase, Bitcoin Core employs parallel processing in two distinct operations. The first operation involves the downloading of blocks. While it is true that Bitcoin Core can request multiple blocks simultaneously, the processing of these blocks remains a sequential task. This approach ensures that blocks are processed in the correct order, maintaining the integrity and continuity of the blockchain.
+
+The significance of sequential block processing cannot be understated. It plays a crucial role in verifying the validity of transactions and the blockchain's state at any given point. Although the downloading of blocks may occur in parallel, this methodical, sequential processing is critical for ensuring the security and reliability of the Bitcoin network. By adhering to this procedure, Bitcoin Core effectively balances efficiency in data acquisition with the meticulous verification required for blockchain continuity.</summary>
+    <published>2024-11-29T14:08:23.249000+00:00</published>
+  </entry>
+</feed>

static/delvingbitcoin/Nov_2024/3643_OP-EXPIRE-Mitigating-replacing-cycling-attacks.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
+  <id>1</id>
+  <title>OP_EXPIRE: Mitigating replacing cycling attacks</title>
+  <updated>2024-11-30T02:23:32.341214+00:00</updated>
+  <author>
+    <name>mplsgrant 2024-11-29 21:58:50.821000+00:00</name>
+  </author>
+  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="0.9.0">python-feedgen</generator>
+  <entry>
+    <id>1</id>
+    <title>OP_EXPIRE: Mitigating replacing cycling attacks</title>
+    <updated>2024-11-30T02:23:32.341244+00:00</updated>
+    <link href="https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/op-expire-mitigating-replacing-cycling-attacks/1282/6" rel="alternate"/>
+    <summary>The discussion revolves around the experimentation with replacement cycling using Warnet, highlighting prior efforts before a significant refactor was mentioned by Jonas. These experiments were primarily based on a replacement cycling example developed by Ariard, which can be explored in detail through the provided GitHub links ([Warnet Pull Request 422](https://github.com/bitcoin-dev-project/warnet/pull/422) and [Warnet Pull Request 373](https://github.com/bitcoin-dev-project/warnet/pull/373)). Furthermore, Jonas has indicated that the Warnet team is in the process of introducing a new system aimed at deploying lightning nodes into Warnet. Alongside this development, there's an initiative to implement a new plugin system. This system is being designed to simplify the process for users who wish to extend functionality, making it more user-friendly and accessible for enhancements and customizations.</summary>
+    <published>2024-11-29T21:58:50.821000+00:00</published>
+  </entry>
+</feed>