On Monday, April 02, 2012 4:55:03 PM Alan Reiner wrote:
> Any thoughts? (I have no doubts that there are :) )
IMO, the sign-request URI should be an extension on the existing bitcoin: URI
scheme; this way, sigNeeded can be omitted to imply "sign with a sending
address".
---
I would like to propose two things that are closely related. I will
start making BIPS if there's positive feedback. Sorry it's so long, but
I felt both should be in the same email...
_*(1) Signature Blocks* -- A more-robust, versatile, message-signing
exchange_
Satoshi client 0.6.0 intro
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Pieter Wuille
> wrote:
> > Any opinions about a numbering scheme? Currently the value 6 is
> used. We could
> > simply start increasing the number one by one now for every change, or
> we could
> > do a "cl
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> Any opinions about a numbering scheme? Currently the value 6 is used. We
> could
> simply start increasing the number one by one now for every change, or we
> could
> do a "cleanup" to 10 first, and start incrementing from there.
Summarizing a discussion from #bitcoin-dev this morning:
The merge window for pull requests for a 0.6.1 release is now open.
This will be a bug-fix and code-cleanup only release, with the goal to
have Release Candidate 1 binaries available for testing in three
weeks: April 23'rd. We want this to
Hello all,
Mike Hearn has submitted a pull request to add a pong message in reply to a
ping.
This warrants an upgrade of the network protocol version number, which is since
BIP14
independent from the version numbers of the reference client.
Any opinions about a numbering scheme? Currently the
6 matches
Mail list logo
