On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:30:11AM -0400, Alan Reiner wrote:
> On 09/28/2014 10:35 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> > This can be solved by upgrading the address format at
> > the same time to let senders know they must send the funds in a
> > transaction with an increased version number, but obviously need
On 09/28/2014 10:35 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> This can be solved by upgrading the address format at
> the same time to let senders know they must send the funds in a
> transaction with an increased version number, but obviously needing new
> addresses for every new opcode defeats the purpose of P2SH.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 09:54:31AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> RE: soft-forks bumping version numbers:
>
> Yes, we have consensus that is the way we will do it. I should probably
> turn https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/2355445 into an informational
> BIP.
That gist is mistaken. To see th
On Sunday, September 28, 2014 5:15:53 AM Peter Todd wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 07:55:44PM -0700, Tom Harding wrote:
> > On 9/25/2014 7:37 PM, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> > > Of course you wouldn't want nodes to propagate alerts without
> > > independently verifying them
> >
> > How would a node i
4 matches
Mail list logo
