On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 09:26:07AM -0700, odinn wrote: > This is very well done. > > Have you seen this discussion that I started regarding BIP 63? > > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1083961.0 > > I have no response from Peter Todd back on it other than "my time is > better spent focusing on more fundemental issues" and "I've also got > no-one interested in funding stealth address development right now," > when several people (myself included) offered to send donations to see > the BIP (63) advance, no donation address was posted, so... waiting > for him to act on that.
Sorry, but I'm looking at the huge amount of work that I'll likely have responding to the blocksize issue, so I think I'm inclined to shelve work on BIP63 for now. Feel free to take it up; a (>=2)-part standard describing the resuable codes aspect, and separately how the ephemeral key is transmitted to the recipient makes sense to me. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
