And, finally, when I say "Ditto to above" I mean "I have no idea", not
"nope". Double oops.
--
Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
Deploy New Relic app performance management and know ex
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/10/2012 03:02, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 9:15 PM, steve wrote:
>> Im ready to go, more or less. Please check out the links in my
>> previous emails. I have over 400 testcases (8 platforms * 50
>> release tests) - Also I a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/10/2012 17:52, Peter Vessenes wrote:
> I'm a big proponent of a testing project.
I am very happy to hear this, however, your actual words are slightly
evasive. I do not expect you to be up to speed on this. Gavin started
a project called 'the bi
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> A simple way to solve this problem is just use the SSL identity of the
> server that is taking part in the protocol, but it's not much harder
SSL itself (as opposed to using the certs as you suggest) is not
non-reputablable, so it's not enough f
I think it's worth pondering the different things we may want in
future, even if that future is quite far out, just to ensure we have a
robust design that won't box us in later. Brainstorming feature ideas
now doesn't commit anyone to implementing them, but it may help
improve the final v1 design.
I meant sent twice, a.
No double-spends that I'm aware of. Sorry for the loose verbiage!
Peter
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Peter Vessenes wrote:
> > This is small, but an interesting tidbit from BTC Foundation payments;
> > roughly 3-5
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Peter Vessenes wrote:
> This is small, but an interesting tidbit from BTC Foundation payments;
> roughly 3-5% of our initial members double-spent. WOW, that's terrible.
To be specific, do you mean
a) paid twice
or
b) sent BF coins, then sent the same coins el
There are tons of scenarios, some discussed here on this list previously,
which would benefit from out of band messages and notes.
This is small, but an interesting tidbit from BTC Foundation payments;
roughly 3-5% of our initial members double-spent. WOW, that's terrible.
I presume that's becaus
I agree we need a payment protocol, but instead of thinking of all of the
things we might possibly want I would like to solve a few boring problems
that we have right now.
Absolutely critical:
+ Bitcoin addresses by themselves are insecure against man-in-the-middle
attacks. We need a payment prot
I've been thinking about the requirements for a payment protocol
lately. It seems we have consensus that we need one of these. Pieter
has a gist on the topic here: https://gist.github.com/1237788
IMHO we'll want to move away from "send X BTC to address Y" and more
towards "upload to me transaction
10 matches
Mail list logo
