Sure, but what is questionable here is the use of SOCKS proxy, for Tor I
think as the main purpose, making it dangerous for the "whole bitcoin
world" while it's something like of zero interest/use (or please let me
know what it is beside Tor)
The Tor network is very centralized and not designed
It goes without saying in that all privately known CVE should be handled so
professionally but, that is, well done team.
Regards,
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
From: bitcoin-dev-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org
on behalf of Luke Dashjr via
bitcoin-dev
NACK
1.- At some point in time, fees will need to be the the main part of the reward
of miners, so, I do not see any need to lower them. If we keep them forever
low, the network will be less and less secure because of the halvings.
2.- I think this change involves a Hard Fork (please correct me
While I agree on NACKing the proposal as it does not add anything new and
fundamentally misunderstands what scaling is (or is not in this case), I
disagree with the claim that we do not need to deal with block size issue in
the future any more. Segwit increased our possibilities on how to use
CVE-2017-18350 is a buffer overflow vulnerability which allows a malicious
SOCKS proxy server to overwrite the program stack on systems with a signed
`char` type (including common 32-bit and 64-bit x86 PCs).
The vulnerability was introduced in 60a87bce873ce1f76a80b7b8546e83a0cd4e07a5
(SOCKS5
> a new human-readable-prefix for length prefixed bitcoin witness
programs. "btc1" anyone?
Yes, please!
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 2:04 PM Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I do like the idea of length prefixing the witness program. I will note
>
