On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> I'd like to request a BIP number for this.
>
> Sure. BIP0066.
Four implementations exist now:
* for master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5713 (merged)
* for 0.10.0: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5714 (merged,
and inc
I think the Bitcoin community needs a good person-to-person payment
protocol for BLE simply because Bluetooth LE is effectively
peer-to-peer. Unlike NFC or conventional Bluetooth, a $5 micro can
be either the master or slave and talk directly to other $5 micros
nearby.
[ASIDE... BLE is also the f
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Isidor Zeuner
wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> traditionally, the Bitcoin client strives to hide which output
> addresses are change addresses going back to the payer. However,
> especially with today's dynamically calculated miner fees, this
> may often be ineffective:
>
> A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/06/2015 03:08 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Yes. You can certainly add additional inputs and outputs -- and as
> such you can increase privacy and defrag your wallet at the same
> time.
A lot could be done to make regular spends resemble CoinJoin
Yes. You can certainly add additional inputs and outputs -- and as such
you can increase privacy and defrag your wallet at the same time.
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Wladimir wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Isidor Zeuner
> wrote:
>
> > A possible approach to handle this issue wou
>
> verification using breadwallet on apple is much faster (<1s) than HTTPS
> payment request on bitcoin wallet on android (apparently apple has a
> significantly more optimized signature verification algorithm).
Probably on Android it's being verified in Java instead of C++. Some
Android APIs ar
BLE meets a different use case than regular Bluetooth. BLE is designed to
allow always-on broadcast "beacons" which are conceptually similar to NFC
tags, with very low power requirements. The tradeoff for this ultra-low
power consumption and always on nature is the same as with NFC tags: you
get ve
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Isidor Zeuner
wrote:
> A possible approach to handle this issue would be to add a randomized
> offset amount to the payment amount. This offset amount can be small
> in comparison to the payment amount.
>
> Any thoughts?
Adding/subtracting a randomized offset amou
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Wladimir wrote:
> FYI, I've just tagged v0.10rc4, and pushed my signatures to the
> gitian.sigs repository.
>
> Please start your gitian builders!
Thanks to the extremely quick response (a whopping 9 gitian builders
already!), the executables and tarball for rc4 h
On 02/06/2015 12:59 AM, Roy Badami wrote:
>> In this case there is no need for P2P communication, just pay to an
>> address you already have for the other party. If you want to avoid
>> address reuse, use stealth addressing.
>>
>> But yes, if you don't have a stealth address for the other party you
2015-02-06 2:29 GMT+01:00 Eric Voskuil :
> On 02/05/2015 04:36 PM, Martin Habovštiak wrote:
>> I believe, we are still talking about transactions of physical
>> people in physical world. So yes, it's proximity based - people
>> tell the words by mouth. :)
>
> Notice from my original comment:
>
On 02/06/2015 12:40 AM, Andreas Schildbach wrote:
> On 02/06/2015 01:36 AM, Eric Voskuil wrote:
>
>> The main advantage of BLE over BT is that it uses much less power, with
>> a trade-off in lower bandwidth (100 kbps vs. 2 mbps). The BLE range can
>> be even greater and connection latency lower th
> In this case there is no need for P2P communication, just pay to an
> address you already have for the other party. If you want to avoid
> address reuse, use stealth addressing.
>
> But yes, if you don't have a stealth address for the other party you can
> certainly communicate in private as pee
On 02/06/2015 02:40 AM, Andy Schroder wrote:
> Where is a more appropriate place to discuss the other issues you have
> at length?
What's wrong with this mailing list?
--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. Th
On 02/06/2015 01:36 AM, Eric Voskuil wrote:
> The main advantage of BLE over BT is that it uses much less power, with
> a trade-off in lower bandwidth (100 kbps vs. 2 mbps). The BLE range can
> be even greater and connection latency lower than BT. For payment
> purposes the lower bandwidth isn't m
15 matches
Mail list logo
