[bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Standard address format for timelocked funds

BIP: ? Title: Standard address format for timelocked funds Author: ZmnSCPxj Comments-Summary: ? Comments-URI: ? Status: ? Type: ? Created: 2017-07-01 License: CC0-1.0 == Abstract == OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY provides a method of locking funds until a particular time

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Larger block sizes is not likely to have a meaningful impact on fee pressure. > Any expectations that do not match the reality are merely misguided, and > should not be a basis for

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP

> Maximum transaction size is kept, to maximize compatibility with current > software and prevent algorithmic and data size DoS's. IIRC, it is actually increased by ~81 bytes, and doesn't count witness data if on Segwit transactions (so in effect, nearly 4 MB transactions are possible). This

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote: > This is not a hard fork, simply adding a new limit is a soft fork. You > appear to be confused - as originally written, AFAIR, Jeff's btc1 branch > did not increase the block size, your

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Hello, > > Here is a BIP that matches the reference code that the Segwit2x group has > built and published a week ago. I'm happy to see that someone has begun writing a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP

This is horribly under-specified (ie not possible to implement from what you've written, and your implementation doesn't match at all, last I heard). > Specification > The plain block size is defined as the serialized block size without > witness programs. > Deploy a modified BIP91 to activate

[bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP

Hello, Here is a BIP that matches the reference code that the Segwit2x group has built and published a week ago. This BIP and code satisfies the requests of a large part of the Bitcoin community for a moderate increase in the Bitcoin non-witness block space coupled with the activation of Segwit.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds

What if you want height based but lockinontimeout = false ? On 7 Jul 2017 8:09 am, "shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I have written a height based reference implementation as well as updated > the BIP text in the following proposals > >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds

I have written a height based reference implementation as well as updated the BIP text in the following proposals "lockinontimeout" was just an implementation detail to allow BIP8 the BIP9 implementation code. With the change to height based, we can dispense with it entirely. So the two