3 typo
source | link

This is a bit speculative, as I do not know exactly what is planned.

1024+ bytes is quite a reduction, so my guess is that the range will be reduced. Currently the spender must prove the output is in the range [0, 2^64), and if the upper limit were reduced it would reduce the size of the signature. This would not alter security, but would decrease the amount that could be sent in a single output. Amounts larger than the upper range could sent still be sent to a single address in one transaction, but would require multiple outputs to do so.

This is a bit speculative, as I do not know exactly what is planned.

1024+ bytes is quite a reduction, so my guess is that the range will be reduced. Currently the spender must prove the output is in the range [0, 2^64), and if the upper limit were reduced it would reduce the size of the signature. This would not alter security, but would decrease the amount that could be sent in a single output. Amounts larger than the upper range could sent still be sent to a single address in one transaction, but would require multiple outputs to do so.

This is a bit speculative, as I do not know exactly what is planned.

1024+ bytes is quite a reduction, so my guess is that the range will be reduced. Currently the spender must prove the output is in the range [0, 2^64), and if the upper limit were reduced it would reduce the size of the signature. This would not alter security, but would decrease the amount that could be sent in a single output. Amounts larger than the upper range could still be sent to a single address in one transaction, but would require multiple outputs to do so.

2 edited body
source | link

This is a bit speculative, as I do not know exactly what is planned.

1024+ bytes is quite a reduction, so my guess is that the range will be reduced. Currently the spender must proofprove the output is in the range [0, 2^64), and if the upper limit were reduced it would reduce the size of the signature. This would not alter security, but would decrease the amount that could be sent in a single output. Amounts larger than the upper range could sent still be sent to a single address in one transaction, but would require multiple outputs to do so.

This is a bit speculative, as I do not know exactly what is planned.

1024+ bytes is quite a reduction, so my guess is that the range will be reduced. Currently the spender must proof the output is in the range [0, 2^64), and if the upper limit were reduced it would reduce the size of the signature. This would not alter security, but would decrease the amount that could be sent in a single output. Amounts larger than the upper range could sent still be sent to a single address in one transaction, but would require multiple outputs to do so.

This is a bit speculative, as I do not know exactly what is planned.

1024+ bytes is quite a reduction, so my guess is that the range will be reduced. Currently the spender must prove the output is in the range [0, 2^64), and if the upper limit were reduced it would reduce the size of the signature. This would not alter security, but would decrease the amount that could be sent in a single output. Amounts larger than the upper range could sent still be sent to a single address in one transaction, but would require multiple outputs to do so.

1
source | link

This is a bit speculative, as I do not know exactly what is planned.

1024+ bytes is quite a reduction, so my guess is that the range will be reduced. Currently the spender must proof the output is in the range [0, 2^64), and if the upper limit were reduced it would reduce the size of the signature. This would not alter security, but would decrease the amount that could be sent in a single output. Amounts larger than the upper range could sent still be sent to a single address in one transaction, but would require multiple outputs to do so.