Re: [bitcoin-dev] Revisiting BIP 125 RBF policy.

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 10:39:46AM -0500, Russell O'Connor wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > > > I mean, I think in general solving this problem is probably not > possible.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Revisiting BIP 125 RBF policy.

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 10:39:46AM -0500, Russell O'Connor wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > > I mean, I think in general solving this problem is probably not possible. > > Basically, the fundamental problem is someone else has consumed network > >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Revisiting BIP 125 RBF policy.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:25:59AM -0500, Russell O'Connor wrote: > > When you say that you don't think it is possible to solve, do you mean > that > > there is a specific problem with this proposal of replacing

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Reserved nversion bits in blockheader - stratum mining.configure

Hello, Our reasoning for coming up with a new method for miner configuration was stated here: https://github.com/slushpool/stratumprotocol/issues/1 It is primarily the determinism of expecting the response. That is the reason why we chose a new method mining.configure instead of an existing