On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:11 PM, G. Andrew Stone via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Thanks for your offer Luke, but we are happy with our own process and,
> regardless of historical provenance, see this mailing list and the BIP
> process as very Core specific for reas
Thanks for your offer Luke, but we are happy with our own process and,
regardless of historical provenance, see this mailing list and the BIP
process as very Core specific for reasons that are too numerous to describe
here but should be obvious to anyone who has been aware of the last year of
Bitco
On Tuesday, March 08, 2016 2:35:21 AM G. Andrew Stone via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Not an unreasonable request, however while I personally respect the many
> great accomplishments of individual engineers loosely affiliated with
> "Core", Bitcoin Unlimited has our own process for documentation and
> dis
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 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
