Hi,
> Does this functionality change peer selection?
This bit will be used for selecting outgoing peers in Bitcoin XT.
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 8:06 PM, G. Andrew Stone via bitcoin-de
I think a BIP is a good idea, but rather than making such a specific
proposal as "Let's use bit 4 to indicate communication of thin blocks," how
about a more general one like "Let's use bit(s?) 4(-5?) as user-agent
specific service bits so that if you customize your user-agent string, you
can use t
These are the relevant info BIPs.
NODE_GETUTXO
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0064.mediawiki
NODE_BLOOM:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0111.mediawiki
The relevant code is here:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/protocol.h#L228
The NODE_GETUTXO
Included at the bottom of this mail is a BIP concerning our impending use
of a particular services bit.
I am making a good-faith effort to notify the community of this use and
follow the BIP submission rules with a correctly formatted BIP sent to Luke
jr. He has informed me that such a BIP should
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Dave Scotese wrote:
> I think a BIP is a good idea, but rather than making such a specific
> proposal as "Let's use bit 4 to indicate communication of thin blocks," how
> about a more general one like "Let's use bit(s?) 4(-5?) as user-agent
Not communicated in addr
An alternative soft fork would be to require that miners pay some of the
coinbase to a CLTV locked output (that is otherwise unlocked). This allows
the release of the funds to be delayed.
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
I recently ran into an issue while importing a Mycelium HD wallet where it
was not finding all of my funds - upon further investigation with Mycelium
devs we realized that the wallet was following the BIP44 spec correctly,
but BIP44 may have a flaw.
The problem was a result of my creating 16 trans
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 8:06 PM, G. Andrew Stone via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> The Bitcoin Unlimited client needs a services bit to indicate that the node
> is capable of communicating thin blocks. We propose to use bit 4 as AFAIK
> bit 3 is already earmarked for Segregated Witness.
Does this function
The Bitcoin Unlimited client needs a services bit to indicate that the node
is capable of communicating thin blocks. We propose to use bit 4 as AFAIK
bit 3 is already earmarked for Segregated Witness.
Andrew
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@list
