Updated newly generated xml files

static/bitcoin-dev/Dec_2024/combined_Covenants-Support-Bitcoin-Wiki.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
+  <id>2</id>
+  <title>Combined summary - Covenants Support - Bitcoin Wiki</title>
+  <updated>2024-12-07T02:32:15.878133+00:00</updated>
+  <author>
+    <name>Jonas Nick 2024-12-06 21:45:00+00:00</name>
+  </author>
+  <author>
+    <name>/dev /fd 2024-11-29 14:08:00+00:00</name>
+  </author>
+  <link href="bitcoin-dev/Dec_2024/m73f853879153d979a8c1d7bbc9ffcf9c0313c461_Covenants-Support-Bitcoin-Wiki.xml" rel="alternate"/>
+  <link href="bitcoin-dev/Nov_2024/m91e5a68b8275a73acdcc8fc2276b9caf678fdab4_Covenants-Support-Bitcoin-Wiki.xml" rel="alternate"/>
+  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="0.9.0">python-feedgen</generator>
+  <entry>
+    <id>2</id>
+    <title>Combined summary - Covenants Support - Bitcoin Wiki</title>
+    <updated>2024-12-07T02:32:15.878173+00:00</updated>
+    <link href="https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/[email protected]/T/#u#m91e5a68b8275a73acdcc8fc2276b9caf678fdab4" rel="alternate"/>
+    <summary>The email initiates a dialogue concerning the current methodology employed for building consensus around Bitcoin covenant proposals, specifically critiquing the format modeled after the SegWit support page. It suggests that this approach inadequately facilitates rough consensus as per the guidelines of RFC 7282, which it recommends for a comprehensive understanding of consensus-building principles. The sender proposes significant modifications to enhance the process: firstly, by advocating for the separation of technical evaluation from community support, arguing that current ratings presuppose levels of support that could lead to biased outcomes. Secondly, it stresses the necessity of providing reasons for objections, recommending that each negative assessment be accompanied by detailed documentation of the concerns raised. This adjustment aims to foster constructive debate and more informed decision-making within the community. Lastly, the suggestion to add links to corresponding draft Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs) for all opcodes listed aims to offer a solid foundation for technical evaluations.
+
+In a broader context, the email mentions the creation of a draft Bitcoin wiki page intended to compile developer insights on various covenant proposals. This initiative seeks to replicate the SegWit page's success in gathering support for soft forks related to Bitcoin's development. The wiki page, open for contributions from developers, is designed to be a platform for sharing opinions and technical evaluations. Developers are encouraged to list relevant opcodes, add their GitHub usernames, and articulate their positions on proposals such as OP_CheckTemplateVerify (OP_CTV). The latter is singled out for its potential benefits, including enhancing pools with covenants and improving implementations like coinjoin. A linked presentation provides further rationale for supporting OP_CTV, underlining its significance in the broader conversation about Bitcoin's evolution. The sender underscores the collaborative nature of this endeavor, aiming to simplify the consensus process towards the next soft fork and highlighting the collective work needed to identify and agree upon the most advantageous proposals.</summary>
+    <published>2024-12-06T21:45:00+00:00</published>
+  </entry>
+</feed>

static/bitcoin-dev/Dec_2024/m73f853879153d979a8c1d7bbc9ffcf9c0313c461_Covenants-Support-Bitcoin-Wiki.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
+  <id>1</id>
+  <title>Covenants Support - Bitcoin Wiki</title>
+  <updated>2024-12-07T02:32:04.578020+00:00</updated>
+  <author>
+    <name>Jonas Nick 2024-12-06 21:45:00+00:00</name>
+  </author>
+  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="0.9.0">python-feedgen</generator>
+  <entry>
+    <id>1</id>
+    <title>Covenants Support - Bitcoin Wiki</title>
+    <updated>2024-12-07T02:32:04.578053+00:00</updated>
+    <link href="https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/[email protected]/T/#m73f853879153d979a8c1d7bbc9ffcf9c0313c461" rel="alternate"/>
+    <summary>The email highlights concerns regarding the current methodology employed by the SegWit support page in facilitating rough consensus, particularly for covenants. It argues that the page does not align with the principles of consensus building as described in RFC 7282, which is highly recommended for a thorough understanding of the process. The sender suggests significant modifications to improve the approach towards achieving consensus within the community.
+
+One primary recommendation involves distinguishing between technical evaluation and community support. The current system assigns ratings of "Deficient" and "Wanting" based on perceived levels of community backing, which paradoxically presupposes the outcome it aims to facilitate. This approach is criticized for potentially leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy where proposals are prematurely judged without genuine consideration. To rectify this, it is proposed that these categories be eliminated, allowing for a more open and unbiased assessment process.
+
+Furthermore, the email emphasizes the importance of transparency and accountability when objections arise. Echoing RFC 7282, it suggests that all negative evaluations should be accompanied by detailed justifications, accessible via links to mailing list posts or similar documentation. These justifications should cover various aspects such as technical shortcomings, potential for widespread adoption, and implications for decentralization. Such a practice would ensure that discussions are informed and constructive, enabling either resolution of concerns or acceptance of differences as non-critical.
+
+Lastly, the necessity of linking to Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) drafts is underlined. Since opcodes discussed on the wiki page are expected to have corresponding draft BIPs, providing direct links would significantly enhance the clarity and foundation of technical evaluations. This addition would serve to streamline the evaluation process by offering easy access to relevant technical details and rationale behind each proposal.
+
+In summary, the email proposes a refined approach to consensus building on the SegWit support page by advocating for clearer separation between technical evaluation and community sentiment, demanding explicit reasons for objections, and ensuring direct links to BIP drafts are available. These changes aim to foster a more transparent, inclusive, and reasoned pathway toward consensus within the Bitcoin development community.</summary>
+    <published>2024-12-06T21:45:00+00:00</published>
+  </entry>
+</feed>

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

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
+  <id>2</id>
+  <title>Combined summary - Covenants Support - Bitcoin Wiki</title>
+  <updated>2024-12-07T02:32:15.878133+00:00</updated>
+  <author>
+    <name>Jonas Nick 2024-12-06 21:45:00+00:00</name>
+  </author>
+  <author>
+    <name>/dev /fd 2024-11-29 14:08:00+00:00</name>
+  </author>
+  <link href="bitcoin-dev/Dec_2024/m73f853879153d979a8c1d7bbc9ffcf9c0313c461_Covenants-Support-Bitcoin-Wiki.xml" rel="alternate"/>
+  <link href="bitcoin-dev/Nov_2024/m91e5a68b8275a73acdcc8fc2276b9caf678fdab4_Covenants-Support-Bitcoin-Wiki.xml" rel="alternate"/>
+  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="0.9.0">python-feedgen</generator>
+  <entry>
+    <id>2</id>
+    <title>Combined summary - Covenants Support - Bitcoin Wiki</title>
+    <updated>2024-12-07T02:32:15.878173+00:00</updated>
+    <link href="https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/[email protected]/T/#u#m91e5a68b8275a73acdcc8fc2276b9caf678fdab4" rel="alternate"/>
+    <summary>The email initiates a dialogue concerning the current methodology employed for building consensus around Bitcoin covenant proposals, specifically critiquing the format modeled after the SegWit support page. It suggests that this approach inadequately facilitates rough consensus as per the guidelines of RFC 7282, which it recommends for a comprehensive understanding of consensus-building principles. The sender proposes significant modifications to enhance the process: firstly, by advocating for the separation of technical evaluation from community support, arguing that current ratings presuppose levels of support that could lead to biased outcomes. Secondly, it stresses the necessity of providing reasons for objections, recommending that each negative assessment be accompanied by detailed documentation of the concerns raised. This adjustment aims to foster constructive debate and more informed decision-making within the community. Lastly, the suggestion to add links to corresponding draft Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs) for all opcodes listed aims to offer a solid foundation for technical evaluations.
+
+In a broader context, the email mentions the creation of a draft Bitcoin wiki page intended to compile developer insights on various covenant proposals. This initiative seeks to replicate the SegWit page's success in gathering support for soft forks related to Bitcoin's development. The wiki page, open for contributions from developers, is designed to be a platform for sharing opinions and technical evaluations. Developers are encouraged to list relevant opcodes, add their GitHub usernames, and articulate their positions on proposals such as OP_CheckTemplateVerify (OP_CTV). The latter is singled out for its potential benefits, including enhancing pools with covenants and improving implementations like coinjoin. A linked presentation provides further rationale for supporting OP_CTV, underlining its significance in the broader conversation about Bitcoin's evolution. The sender underscores the collaborative nature of this endeavor, aiming to simplify the consensus process towards the next soft fork and highlighting the collective work needed to identify and agree upon the most advantageous proposals.</summary>
+    <published>2024-12-06T21:45:00+00:00</published>
+  </entry>
+</feed>

static/delvingbitcoin/Dec_2024/3720_Bitcoin-OP-CAT-Use-Cases-Series-5-Drivechain.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
+  <id>0</id>
+  <title>Bitcoin OP_CAT Use Cases Series #5: Drivechain</title>
+  <updated>2024-12-07T02:29:59.307235+00:00</updated>
+  <author>
+    <name>sCrypt-ts 2024-12-06 08:09:05.517000+00:00</name>
+  </author>
+  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="0.9.0">python-feedgen</generator>
+  <entry>
+    <id>0</id>
+    <title>Bitcoin OP_CAT Use Cases Series #5: Drivechain</title>
+    <updated>2024-12-07T02:29:59.307265+00:00</updated>
+    <link href="https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/bitcoin-op-cat-use-cases-series-5-drivechain/1307" rel="alternate"/>
+    <summary>The development of a smart contract that functions similarly to the hashrate escrow mechanism proposed in Bitcoin’s Drivechain, but without necessitating a major protocol upgrade like BIP300, represents a significant advancement in blockchain technology. This smart contract utilizes OP_CAT to establish a sidechain covenant, thereby enabling the operation of sidechains, which are independent blockchains pegged to Bitcoin. These sidechains facilitate the transfer of BTC between the Bitcoin mainchain and the sidechains, allowing for the exploration of new features or experimental technologies without modifying the mainchain structure. The concept is based on a two-way peg system and relies on Bitcoin miners to enforce transfers, with a specific focus on the mechanism of miner voting as outlined in BIP300 for the approval of withdrawals from the sidechain back to the main Bitcoin blockchain.
+
+The innovative hashrate escrow contract diverges from traditional cryptographic signatures, instead using a voting process by the collective hash power over time, akin to a large multisignature arrangement. This process requires a majority consensus among miners, typically defined as a percentage of the total hashrate, to approve withdrawal requests within a designated voting period that can last several months. The contract's design emphasizes decentralized consensus through miner participation and includes dynamic state updates for tracking vote counts and timestamps, managed by a group of operators under an m-of-n signature scheme. 
+
+This methodology ensures a secure and decentralized framework for managing withdrawals from the sidechain, with operators initiating withdrawal proposals and miners voting on these proposals through coinbase transactions. The smart contract incorporates several key functions such as `lock`, `initWithdrawal`, `vote`, and `finishWithdrawal` to facilitate this process, ensuring the integrity of state transitions and vote counting. Additional security measures are enforced through transaction introspection and strict validation checks, including the verification of operator signatures and the sufficiency of bridged funds.
+
+The code for this smart contract, which marks a step forward in the application of smart contracts for enhancing Bitcoin's functionality without core protocol changes, is available [on GitHub](https://github.com/sCrypt-Inc/cat-contracts/blob/master/src/contracts/driveChain.ts). This implementation not only showcases the potential of OP_CAT in enabling complex contract functionalities on Bitcoin but also acknowledges the inspiration drawn from existing work, specifically the SHA-gate contract designed for Bitcoin Cash, adapting its mechanics for use on Bitcoin with OP_CAT re-enabled.</summary>
+    <published>2024-12-06T08:09:05.517000+00:00</published>
+  </entry>
+</feed>

static/delvingbitcoin/Dec_2024/3721_Can-parallel-validation-side-step-the-slow-block-issue-.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+<?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>2024-12-07T02:29:17.796351+00:00</updated>
+  <author>
+    <name>sjors 2024-12-06 13:17:22.252000+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>2024-12-07T02:29:17.796383+00:00</updated>
+    <link href="https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/can-parallel-validation-side-step-the-slow-block-issue/1288/15" rel="alternate"/>
+    <summary>The email addresses an intricate aspect of blockchain technology, focusing on the dynamics between mining strategies and block validation times. The core idea revolves around miners' response to being presented with a block that is expensive to validate. According to the outlined scenario, a miner would opt to discard a slow-to-validate block if a competing block arrives during its validation phase. This decision is based on a preference for faster, equal-work blocks over continuing to mine on top of the old tip. The strategy does not involve any deviation from the actions of regular relay nodes within the blockchain network.
+
+The discussion extends to the natural occurrence of a race between a normal and an expensive block. In such instances, the propagation disadvantage of the expensive block could be exacerbated if miners, upon receiving it first, also start validating a subsequently received normal block in parallel. This approach would further diminish the chances of the expensive block being built upon by other miners. However, this proposal suggests only a marginal improvement in a specific unlikely scenario and comes with high implementation complexity.
+
+Moreover, the possibility of a miner proposing a block that takes an hour to validate is considered. In such extreme cases, up to six competing blocks could emerge while the slowest node is still processing the first block. The crux of the matter lies not in the rarity of this attack but in whether the potential for an attacker's block to become stale acts as a sufficient deterrent against such strategies. The effectiveness of this deterrence could justify the complexities involved in implementing measures against it.
+
+The conversation also touches upon the phenomenon of empty blocks, highlighting how SPV (Simplified Payment Verification) mining, due to its reliance on propagation time, currently stands as the primary cause of such occurrences. It's speculated that a shift towards optimizing for validation speed might introduce another reason for the emergence of empty blocks within the mining ecosystem.</summary>
+    <published>2024-12-06T13:17:22.252000+00:00</published>
+  </entry>
+</feed>

static/delvingbitcoin/Dec_2024/3722_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>2024-12-07T02:29:06.986642+00:00</updated>
+  <author>
+    <name>AntoineP 2024-12-06 14:31:08.526000+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>2024-12-07T02:29:06.986673+00:00</updated>
+    <link href="https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/can-parallel-validation-side-step-the-slow-block-issue/1288/16" rel="alternate"/>
+    <summary>The conversation addresses the complexity of optimizing blockchain technology, specifically focusing on the necessity of mining competing blocks. The process of mining is crucial in this context because it involves validating transactions and creating new blocks within the blockchain. This ensures the integrity and security of the data being recorded. Optimizing this process, therefore, requires careful consideration of how blocks are mined and the competition among miners to complete these tasks efficiently.
+
+Mining competing blocks isn't just about the technological prowess it demands but also encapsulates the economic and computational resources required to do so effectively. This aspect highlights the intersection between technology and economics, where optimizing one facet necessitates understanding and leveraging principles from the other. The conversation suggests that a holistic approach, considering both technical and economic strategies, is essential for enhancing the efficiency of blockchain mining operations.
+
+Furthermore, the discussion implies that advancements in blockchain technology, while beneficial, bring forth new challenges in maintaining the balance between speed, security, and decentralization. Each of these elements plays a critical role in the blockchain's efficacy and reliability. The need to mine competing blocks efficiently underscores the ongoing efforts to innovate and improve upon existing methods, ensuring the blockchain remains a robust and secure platform for transactions and data recording.</summary>
+    <published>2024-12-06T14:31:08.526000+00:00</published>
+  </entry>
+</feed>