These BIPs have been assigned 120 and 121:
120: Proof of Payment
121: Proof of Payment URI scheme
Regards,
Kalle
Den 24 jul 2015 08:27 skrev Kalle Rosenbaum ka...@rosenbaum.se:
These BIPs have been assigned 120 and 121:
120: Proof of Payment
121: Proof of Payment URI scheme
Regards,
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 at 10:52 AM
From: Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 102 - kick the can down the road to 2MB
The reference to bandwidth increases makes no sense, the
On Friday 17. July 2015 20.29.16 Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
We are unlikely to approach 1 MB of actual volume by November, so I would
prefer to see the activation date on this moved later - maybe November
2016, if not 2017. It would also be an improvement to try to follow
reasonably-
On 7/23/2015 10:57 PM, Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev wrote:
I used Google to establish that there is not already a post from 2015
that mentions roadmap in the subject line. Such would be a good
skeleton for anyone new to the list (like me).
Just a point about terminology:
Roadmap - A plan of
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 4:38 AM, Mike Hearn he...@vinumeris.com wrote:
It's worth noting that even massive companies with $30M USD of funding
don't run a single Bitcoin Core node
This has nothing to do with block sizes, and everything to do with Core
not directly providing the services
On Jul 24, 2015, at 10:40 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 07:09:13AM -0700, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev wrote:
(Claim of large bitcoin ecosystem companies without full nodes) this
says to me rather we have a need for
After thinking about it, implementing it, and doing some benchmarking, I'm
convinced replacing the existing, messy, ad-hoc sigop-counting consensus
rules is the right thing to do.
The last two commits in this branch are an implementation:
Thanks for bringing up the CCSS, Adam and Peter.
I was actually working on a post inviting everyone in this mailing list to come
and participate…but you guys beat me to it. :)
The CCSS is an open standard, born out of the belief that sharing the
industry's best practices amongst each other and
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 at 2:12 PM
From: s7r via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making Electrum more anonymous
Privacy concerned people should run their own Electrum server and make
it accessible via
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 07:09:13AM -0700, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev wrote:
(Claim of large bitcoin ecosystem companies without full nodes) this
says to me rather we have a need for education: I run a full node
myself (intermittently), just for my puny collection of bitcoins. If
I ran a
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 03:39:08PM +0200, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
On Friday 24. July 2015 05.37.30 Slurms MacKenzie via bitcoin-dev wrote:
It's worth noting that even massive companies with $30M USD of funding don't
run a single Bitcoin Core node,
I assume you mean that they
Alternatively I think instead of displaying a meaningless number we ought
to go by a percentage (the double spend improbability) and go by
'confidence'.
That is a great idea, and not too hard to implement. A bit of code can
determine over the last N blocks, how many blocks that were at the
On 7/24/2015 2:24 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:
Regarding increasing the exchange rate it would be really nice to
just push a button and double bitcoin's price just before the next
subsidy halving, but unfortunately that's something out of our control.
Jorge, right now, from the activity on github,
Validated - (seen on network)
Settled/Cleared - 1 conf
Finalised - 6 confs
On Sat, 2015-07-25 at 00:37 +1000, Vincent Truong via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Fast transactions
Fast transactions implies it is slower than Visa, and Visa is
'instant' by comparison from the spender's POV. Bitcoin is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Interesting, so this basically would merge into an already existing
BIP (Jeff Garzik's). However, it proposes some changes.
OK
CVE-2013-2292 is a severity thingy of high which is described as
bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt 0.8.0 and earlier allow remote
It's worth noting that even massive companies with $30M USD of funding
don't run a single Bitcoin Core node
This has nothing to do with block sizes, and everything to do with Core not
directly providing the services businesses actually want.
The whole node count is falling because of block
16 matches
Mail list logo
