[Bitcoin-development] 0.9.2 RC postponed for 7 days

The release candidate for 0.9.2 was previously scheduled for May 13th. Yesterday it was decided to postpone this for 7 days due to the Bitcoin 2014 Amsterdam conference. The string freeze is now in effect and it is a very good time to contribute translations

Re: [Bitcoin-development] statoshi.info is now live

I agree, it looks very slick. Well done. While on the subject of connected peers, what about the idea of adding the ping time from this node to other peers? The problem with fitting that information into the current design is that the graphs seem to be comprised of overall statistics for this

Re: [Bitcoin-development] statoshi.info is now live

Hello Jameson, On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Jameson Lopp wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Since it seems unlikely that we'll be able to ship an integrated stats / > monitoring feature in the short term, I went ahead and set up a public > Statoshi instance and thr

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Regtest Address Version Change Proposal

And they can't just do NetworkParams.TESTNET = NetworkParams.REGTEST at the start of a program that is connecting to regtest? It's not like changing the address code is a huge problem or anything, but it would disrupt a bunch of people and seems kind of annoying. Surely there's a simpler way t

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Regtest Address Version Change Proposal

bitcore guesses the network from the address version in several places in its code. They don't want to change that. Perhaps it wasn't the wisest approach for them to use. I thought it might be simple to change the address version since its still relatively new and it isn't a real network. Would

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Regtest Address Version Change Proposal

Yes, bitcoinj supports and uses regtest mode. It would also have to be changed. You didn't provide a rationale for this. What's the cost of having them be the same? On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: > Hi folks, > > I propose changing all of the address versions in -regt

Re: [Bitcoin-development] ECDH in the payment protocol

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Chris Pacia wrote: > Just a thought. Using the payment protocol for stealth would mean we > would likely have to return to backing up wallets all the time would it > not? > I think you are right. Awkward. Wallets could auto-respend transactions to a plain (priv

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Fee Formula Proposal

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Peter Grigor wrote: > This was originally submitted to the bitcoin github issue manager. I'm > re-posting here. > > I propose the transaction fee should be calculated from a percentage of the > input amount divided by the confirmations of the input multiplied by th

[Bitcoin-development] Regtest Address Version Change Proposal

Hi folks, I propose changing all of the address versions in -regtest mode to be unique so they are no longer identical to testnet. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/List_of_address_prefixes For example, regtest pubkey hash addresses could begin with r or R. We need to know if any existing tools would n

Re: [Bitcoin-development] ECDH in the payment protocol

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > Of course we quickly rejected the idea of depending solely on a > communications backchannel to retrieve funds. Any communications medium > that isn't the blockchain makes the payment non-atomic, and thus creates > opportunities for it to fail.