On 06/27/2013 01:56 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Jim wrote:
>> Let me know if you think this is a good idea (or not!)
>> and if you have any questions.
>
> Being able to promote a fast SPV desktop wallet would be great!
>
> I went through an cycle of testing o
Perhaps there should be two different sections on the web page.
Nerds / Non-Nerds
With different recommendations for which clients to use.
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Alex Kravets wrote:
> > What all the nerdy devs (and I am one so
Many people that I have introduced Bitcoin to have balked at the massive
blockchain download. When I showed them MultiBit (and Bitcoin Wallet) they
breathed a sigh of relief and got on with it.
A currency lives or dies by network effects. If we can provide the average
low-tech user with a great cl
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Alex Kravets wrote:
> What all the nerdy devs (and I am one so I know) seem unable to comprehend,
> is that regular people out there don't wanna learn all this new stuff and
> new terminology they simply have no attention span for it.
Bitcoin Wallet for Android is
Hi Jim,
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Jim wrote:
>
> Alex: Yes I think most users migrate to blockchain.info or,
> more recently coinbase.com. They are both good wallets
> but I'd like to keep Bitcoin as P2P as possible.
>
Guys, being a late comer/outsider (I got into bitcoin in early 2012)
I missed Greg's point on confirmations.
It is definitely a challenge to explain/ visualize both:
+ has the transaction propagated the network ?
and
+ it it confirmed/ buried in a block ?
when those words probably don't mean much to
the intended audience.
The transaction status icons I *think* do
RE: 141.101.113.245
http://whois.domaintools.com/141.101.113.245
gives it as CloudFlare - I suspect it is protecting
Mt Gox when we make our get for currency ticker info.
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013, at 08:18 PM, Jim wrote:
> A few replies, in order of point raised:
>
> Jeff:
> Arguments against multi
A few replies, in order of point raised:
Jeff:
Arguments against multibit default:
* Less testing, field experience on desktop
Yes this is true - downloads of multibit have typically been around
1/7th to 1/5th of bitcoin-QT downloads. It helps of course that
the bitcoinj networking/ object model
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Thursday, June 27, 2013 5:30:21 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> * Very real possibility of an overall net reduction of full nodes on P2P
>> network
> Even a reduction of *nodes at all*, as I've never seen a listening bitcoinj or
> MultiBit node. :/
>
On Thursday, June 27, 2013 5:30:21 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
> * Very real possibility of an overall net reduction of full nodes on P2P
> network
Even a reduction of *nodes at all*, as I've never seen a listening bitcoinj or
MultiBit node. :/
Jim, will MultiBit be adding p2p listening support?
> I'
Hi guys,
This would be a big step forward. Anecdotally I can report that <5% of *
non-nerds* who don't abandon Bitcoin after waiting for the initial
blockchain download and *ongoing* sync on every restart, end up using
blockchain.info simply because it just works and works on their iPads &
iPhone
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Jim wrote:
> Let me know if you think this is a good idea (or not!)
> and if you have any questions.
Being able to promote a fast SPV desktop wallet would be great!
I went through an cycle of testing on multibit after I saw some
complaints when it went up on the
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Jim wrote:
> Hello Everybody,
>
> Over the last few months we have been steadily adding
> functionality to MultiBit including:
> + encrypted wallets
> + sign and verify message
> + stability improvements and bug fixes.
>
> As a result of these efforts I think Multi
Hello Everybody,
Over the last few months we have been steadily adding
functionality to MultiBit including:
+ encrypted wallets
+ sign and verify message
+ stability improvements and bug fixes.
As a result of these efforts I think MultiBit is now
suitable for the entry level Bitcoin user. I propo
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Arthur Gervais
wrote:
> affecting the same Bitcoin version. However we think it is
> complementary, since our reported problem has nothing to do with fees,
> dust, nor is it necessary to send the two double-spending transaction at
> the same time. In our setting, d
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Arthur Gervais
wrote:
> Our only intention is to raise the awareness for merchants who have to
> accept zero-confirmation transactions. They should be aware of the
> signature encoding difference between Bitcoin versions and the possible
> consequences.
Certainly
On 6/27/13 1:04 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Arthur Gervais
> wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Dear Bitcoin developers,
>>
>> We would like to report a vulnerability which might lead, under some
>> assumptions, to a double-spending a
As of today, a full implementation of micropayment channels has been merged
onto bitcoinj's master branch (to be released in the next version). It is
designed to make it easy for users to create payment channel servers and
clients based on the design at
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Arthur Gervais
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dear Bitcoin developers,
>
> We would like to report a vulnerability which might lead, under some
> assumptions, to a double-spending attack in a fast payment scenario.
> The vulnerability
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear Bitcoin developers,
We would like to report a vulnerability which might lead, under some
assumptions, to a double-spending attack in a fast payment scenario.
The vulnerability has been introduced due to signature encoding
incompatibilities betwee
20 matches
Mail list logo
