That's a great idea, in traditional banking there are wide initiatives to
standardize components between different actors, most widely used is Open
Banking , i think regardless of the usage, it could be hardware or
software, there is a big value in standrizating communications between
different
This sounds really promising to me, I think it could seriously improve the
current SPV trust model.
In abstract these are the possible setups today:
Full node: All history, 100% monetary sovereignty.
SPV: fancy term to Electrum trust model, random selection of nodes, with
full delegation of
Mining strategy is like HFT profitable strategy, you keep it close if it’s
interesting, and you talk about it with the whole world if it’s void. gl.
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 6:45 PM simondev1 via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Dear bitcoin developers,
>
> New BIP:
Shit, so we are vulnerable today? is this zero day vulnerability? so we
could be f* big?
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 5:47 AM Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 12:30:34AM +, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > Certain
Reasonable, I think also first timer should be forbidden form transacting
for at least 3 years from the first purchase, after going in '3 years' into
the rabbit hole, you can consider selling bitcoins. that's fair for low
time hard money folks, imho.
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 3:33 AM Luke Dashjr via
Also, quick question, is groups.io has same structure as Linux Foundation?
foundation/transparency/openness... I think in general it would be great if
this migration will be communicated much more in advance with relaxed
timelines, just by examining priori cases, it's all suggestions. hope next
ert
>>> it was in act a payment to P' + G*H(C2). (P' is simply Q + G*H(C1))
>>>
>>> I don't see anything in the proposal that addresses this. Am I missing
>>> it?
>>>
>>> The applications are also not clear to me, and it doesn't appear to
>
Thank you for sharing, this is indefinitely valuable.
I think that risk could be mitigated if instead of ignoring the bitcoin
address/amount/..., the wallet use this address for integrity checks.
Furthermore, I think this BIP could be improved by actually applying the
homomorphic property and
According to my understanding, Bitcoin protocol is a combination of several
components (node, miner, wallet..), you can use different licenses for
different components, as long as the components are well structured and
inter APIs are well defined and encapsulated, therefore, incompatible
licenses
posal that addresses this. Am I missing it?
>>
>> The applications are also not clear to me, and it doesn't appear to
>> address durability issues (how do you avoid losing your funds if you
>> lose the exact contract?).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug
r to me, and it doesn't appear to
> address durability issues (how do you avoid losing your funds if you
> lose the exact contract?).
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 6:05 AM, omar shibli via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
Hey all,
A lot of us familiar with the pay to contract protocol, and how it uses
cleverly the homomorphic property of elliptic curve encryption system to
achieve it.
Unfortunately, there is no standard specification on how to conduct such
transactions in the cyberspace.
We have developed a basic
12 matches
Mail list logo
