On Jun 15, 2015 11:43 PM, Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au wrote:
Though Peter Todd's more general best-effort language might make more
sense. It's not like you can hide an OP_RETURN transaction to make it
look like something else, so that transaction not going to be
distinguished by
On May 31, 2015 5:08 PM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc wrote:
Whatever...let's use the current subsidies, the same argument applies,
it's just 20 + 25 = 45 btc per block for miner B vs 27 btc for miner B.
Miner B
:46 AM, Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc wrote:
Here's a thought experiment:
Subsidy is gone, all the block reward comes from fees.
I wrote about long-term hypotheticals and why I think it is a big mistake
to waste time worrying about them here:
http://gavinandresen.ninja/when-the-block-reward
On May 27, 2015 11:35 AM, Tier Nolan tier.no...@gmail.com wrote:
Was the intention to change the 95% rule. You need 750 of the last 1000
to activate and then must wait at least 1000 for implication?
You need 75% to start applying it, 95% to start rejecting blocks that don't
apply it.
On May 27, 2015 12:58 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
What I'm not seeing is how the relative nLockTime that nSequence
provides fundamentally changes any of this.
This allows the implementation of a rcltv that doesn't make script depend
on the current height, in a similar way that
It would also help to see the actual code changes required, which I'm sure
will be much shorter than the explanation itself.
On May 27, 2015 5:47 AM, Luke Dashjr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 1:48:05 AM Pieter Wuille wrote:
Feel free to comment. As the gist does not support
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com wrote:
I think long-term the chain will not be secured purely by proof-of-work. I
think when the Bitcoin network was tiny running solely on people's home
computers proof-of-work was the right way to secure the chain, and
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Alex Mizrahi alex.mizr...@gmail.com wrote:
But this matters if a new node has access to the globally strongest chain.
If attacker is able to block connections to legitimate nodes, a new node
will happily accept attacker's chain.
If you get isolated from the
This saves us ocodes for later but it's uglier and produces slightly
bigger scripts.
If we're convinced it's worth it, seems like the right way to do it,
and certainly cltv and rclv/op_maturity are related.
But let's not forget that we can always use this same trick with the
last opcode to get
I like the reuse with negative numbers more than the current proposal
because it doesn't imply bigger scripts. If all problems that may
arise can be solved, that is.
If we went that route, we would start with the initial CLTV too.
But I don't see many strong arguments in favor of using the current
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com wrote:
Fee dynamics seems to come up over and over again in these discussions, with
lots of talk and theorizing.
I hope some data on what is happening with fees right now might help, so I
wrote another blog post (with
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
I was referring to winter next year. 0.12 isn't scheduled until the end of
the year, according to Wladimir. I explained where this figure comes from in
this article:
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Dave Hudson d...@hashingit.com wrote:
Known: There has been a steady trend towards the mean block size getting
larger. See
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=allshowDataPoints=falsedaysAverageString=7show_header=truescale=0address=
Looking at
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com wrote:
I would very much like to find some concrete course of action that we can
come to consensus on. Some compromise so we can tell entrepreneurs THIS is
how much transaction volume the main Bitcoin blockchain will be able
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
It is an argument against my admittedly vague definition of
non-controversial change.
If it's an argument against something you said, it's not a straw man, right
;)
Yes, but it was an argument against something I didn't said
What I was describing was an attempt to fix a similar proposal by Mark
Friedenbach, but it didn't needed fixing: I was simply
misunderstanding it.
Mark's RCLTV is completely reorg safe, so there's no need for the 100
block restriction. It also keeps the script validation independent
from the utxo.
As Mike says it depends on your interests. But one thing that is almost
always welcomed is improving the tests, and it is unlikely that it
conflicts with other people's PRs (unless they're changing that part of the
code and need to update those tests. Improving documentation is also good
and you
to understand Bitcoin protocol and make progress in java to become a good
developper.
Please tell me how I can begin.
Best regards
2015-04-30 10:08 GMT+02:00 Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc:
As Mike says it depends on your interests. But one thing that is almost
always welcomed is improving the tests
Forget it, sorry, I misunderstood the proposal entirely, re-reading
with more care...
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Kalle Rosenbaum ka...@rosenbaum.se wrote:
Hi Jorge,
I don't think I understand the question. Proof of Payment is used to prove
that you have the credentials needed for a
So at the low level, how does a proof of payment differ from just proving
that a given transaction is in a given block (what SPV nodes take as proof
of payment today)?
On Apr 27, 2015 2:42 PM, Kalle Rosenbaum ka...@rosenbaum.se wrote:
Or a really high lock_time, but it would not make it invalid,
of for op_maturity
too, but that's the wingle decision about rcltv/maturity that affects cltv
so better solve that first.
On Apr 27, 2015 9:35 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 02:20:04PM +0200, Jorge Timón wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Jorge Timón jti
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc wrote:
There's another possibility that could keep the utxo out of Script
verification:
class CTxIn
{
public:
COutPoint prevout;
CScript scriptSig;
uint32_t nSequence;
}
could turn into:
class CTxIn
{
public
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
Thus we have a few possibilities:
1) RCLTV against nLockTime
Needs a minimum age COINBASE_MATURITY to be safe.
2) RCLTV against current block height/time
Completely reorg safe.
Yes, can we call this one OP_MATURITY
s7r you may be interested in this video explaining several aspects of
malleability: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyDE-aFqJTs
It is pre BIP62, but I believe it is very relevant and will hopefully
clear some of your doubts.
The signer of TX1 will always be able to change the signature and thus
Oh, no, sorry, it also covers bip62.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc wrote:
s7r you may be interested in this video explaining several aspects of
malleability: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyDE-aFqJTs
It is pre BIP62, but I believe it is very relevant
That case is very unlikely IMO, but still you can solve it while keeping
hash of the genesis block as the chain id. If a community decides to accept
a forking chain with new rules from block N (let's call it bitcoinB), the
original chain can maintain the original genesis block and the new
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com wrote:
scorched earth refers to the _real world_ impact such policies would
have on present-day 0-conf usage within the bitcoin community.
When I posted this: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/32263765/
Peter Todd
I agree scorched hearth is a really bad name for the 0 conf protocol
based on game theory. I would have preferred stag hunt since that's
basically what it's using (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stag_hunt)
but I like the protocol and I think it would be interesting to
integrate it in the
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
He didn't said a project for all possible language bindings, just
java bindings. Other languages' bindings would be separate projects.
Yes/no/sorta.
Java/JNA bindings can be used from Python, Ruby, Javascript, PHP as well as
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Bryan Bishop kanz...@gmail.com wrote:
Second, I think that squeezing all possible language bindings into a project
is also unproductive.
The language binding would be an independent and
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote:
Peter,
We have seen that the consensus critical code practically extends to Berkley
DB limits or OpenSSL laxness, therefore
it is inconceivable that a consensus library is not the same as Bitcoin
Core, less its P2P
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Justus Ranvier
justus.ranv...@monetas.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/29/2014 09:10 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
How does adding inputs to a coinbase differ from just having
pay-to-fee transactions in the block?
If a miner
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 12:25:36PM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:
So let's go through an example to see in which ways
non-proof-of-publication orders are insecure.
Alice the seller wants to sell 1 unit of A for 100 units of B
I agree with Luke, we can endlessly discuss the best defaults like
the default size allowed for OP_RETURN, minimum fees, anti-dust
policies, first-seen vs replace-by-fee, etc; but the fact is that
policies depend on miners. Unfortunately most miners and pools are
quite apathetic when it comes to
://github.com/Blockstream/contracthashtool
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc wrote:
I agree with Luke, we can endlessly discuss the best defaults like
the default size allowed for OP_RETURN, minimum fees, anti-dust
policies, first-seen vs replace-by-fee, etc; but the fact
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Alex Mizrahi alex.mizr...@gmail.com wrote:
For those following this thread, we have now written a paper
describing the side-chains, 2-way pegs and compact SPV proofs.
(With additional authors Andrew Poelstra Andrew Miller).
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Alex Mizrahi alex.mizr...@gmail.com wrote:
This isn't applicable in case of sidechains: anybody with sufficient
hashpower will be able to unlock a locked coin on the parent chain by
producing an SPV proof.
Only if the miners form a shared valid history isn't a
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Something you might want to try to formalize in your analysis is the
proportion of the network which is rational vs
honest/altruistic. Intuitively, if there is a significant amount
of honest hashrate which is refusing
to the framework coordinate with him
first to ensure you don't end up conflicting with a big refactor/rewrite.
--
Jorge Timón
--
Infragistics Professional
Build stunning WinForms apps today!
Reboot your WinForms applications
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
Jorge Timón
--
Open source
the extensions process more
formally. IMO we need a living document version of the payment protocol
with all the different extensions out there folded into it, to simplify
programming tasks and ensure field numbers don't collide.
--
Jorge Timón
On 6/24/14, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
bitcoind already supports SPV mode, that's how bitcoinj clients work.
However the current wallet code doesn't use it, it integrates directly with
the full mode main loop and doesn't talk P2P internally. Which is the fine
and obvious way to
On 6/24/14, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote:
3. Services e.g. exchange, payment processor This is where core +
indexing server talking SPV to core is the right choice
I think this is my main question, what's the advantage of having the
processes talking via the p2p protocol
On 6/24/14, Justus Ranvier justusranv...@gmail.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/24/2014 09:07 AM, Wladimir wrote:
My main argument for the split is that full nodes and wallets have
completely different usage scenarios:
- A wallet should be online as little as
in this thread.
--
Jorge Timón
--
HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions
Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems
Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data
On 6/16/14, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
If they decide to change to something like highest-fee-always-wins, then
they (again) centralise things by forcing all instant transactions to pay
GreenAddress and its competitors money - much though I like your product
Lawrence, let's hope they
Does it make sense to implement a generic Policy interface (abstract
class) which StandardPolicy extends?
Maybe you can then implement a WhitelistPolicy,
ReplacebyFeeStandardPolicy, ReplacebyFeeWhitelistPolicy...
This would make it simpler for miners to implement their own policies
in general.
is secure and I fear that at best
you will end up with an invite only transaction processing network
like Ripple.com has with their consensus algorithm and Unique Node
Lists: that's not really p2p.
--
Jorge Timón
http://freico.in
it is the more rational way for them to prioritize transactions.
Finally I hope they do because it would make 0-confirmation
transactions possible as described in this post.
So I can't find any reasoning against replace-by-fee unless my example
is terribly flawed.
Am I missing something?
--
Jorge Timón
http
On 4/24/14, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
No! This is a misunderstanding. The mechanism they use to prevent double
spends is to *ignore double spends*. The blocks they created indicate the
ordering of transactions they saw and proof of work is used to arrive at a
shared consensus ordering
On 4/24/14, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
...
With replace-by-fee scorched-earth the success rate of such
double-spends would be significantly reduced as the attacker would need
to get lucky with bad propagation not just once, but twice in a row.
Interesting.
Replace-by-fee and
On 4/24/14, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
You can't disentangle the two. Proof of work just makes a block chain hard
to tamper with. What it contains is arbitrary. Honest miners build a block
chain that's intended to stop double spending. Dishonest miners don't.
They're both engaging in
are just as good for providing 1 of the 6 confirms
needed too.
--
Jorge Timón
http://freico.in/
--
Start Your Social Network Today - Download eXo Platform
Build your Enterprise Intranet with eXo Platform Software
Java
comments on the parameters, defaults or any other
design or implementation details are also welcomed.
--
Jorge Timón
http://freico.in/
--
Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
Graph Databases is the definitive
On 4/17/14, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
2) If I wanted to measure validation performance, to get the number of
peak tps that could be processed without taking block sides or network
latency into account, how would I do that? Has anybody tried this
before?
You can just reindex/replay
was going to review all that part of
the code to externally write the private mode anyway.
--
Jorge Timón
http://freico.in/
--
Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
Graph Databases is the definitive new
On 4/7/14, Flavien Charlon flavien.char...@coinprism.com wrote:
Also those 54 BTC (actually 5.4 BTC if the dust is now 540 satoshis) become
part of the capital of the company, and can always be recovered by
uncoloring the shares. It's an investment, not an expense, so I think it is
acceptable.
On 4/7/14, Flavien Charlon flavien.char...@coinprism.com wrote:
Ok, I guess I'm not using the proper terminology. It would be listed on the
Asset section of the company's balance sheet, is what I meant.
No, it's an asset for the owner of the share, not the company, just
like the gold plates are
/
--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
Jorge Timón
http
On 4/5/14, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.name wrote:
On Saturday, 5 April 2014, at 12:21 pm, Jorge Timón wrote:
I like both DD-MM- and -MM-DD. I just dislike MM-DD- and
-DD-MM.
Your preferences reflect a cultural bias. The only entirely numeric date
format
/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
Jorge Timón
http://freico.in/
--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https
I'll make sure I understand your proposal better before commenting
much on it, but at a first glance, I don't see how it is incompatible
with 2 way peg and merged mining itself.
Why wouldn't you want merged mining for the root of your tree?
A miner could only chose a leaf block at a time, but it
for free,
please, enlighten us, how that's done?
It should be easier with the scamcoin ixcoin, with a much lower
subsidy to miners so I don't feel bad about the suggestion if your
free attack somehow works (certainly using some magic I don't know
about).
--
Jorge Timón
http://freico.in
those transactions or maybe updating its committed utxo when it has
proofs that the coins have been withdrawn.
[1] http://freico.in/docs/freimarkets.pdf
https://github.com/jtimon/freimarkets/blob/master/doc/freimarkets_specs.org#private-ledgers
--
Jorge Timón
http://freico.in
On 3/13/14, Troy Benjegerdes ho...@hozed.org wrote:
cynic hat: on
Every volatility bump messes up expectations of what a bitcoin is worth,
so why are we bikeshedding uBTC vs mBTC? Just be done with it and do mBTC
now, and plan uBTC for just after the next price spike to $10KUSD or
whatever,
On 3/13/14, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
You would only need to change it if there was a sub-satoshi hardfork,
which doesn't seem necessary anytime soon.
+
We shouldn't make any assumptions about the future price of bitcoin to make
the decision.
Hmmm ;) Didn't you just make an
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
Jorge Timón
http://freico.in
in summary, I feel like before actually solving the problem we need
to rise more awareness on how nice and necessary nExpiryTime would be.
Anyway, sorry, I just wanted to point out another use, a deeper
discussion about this belongs to another thread.
--
Jorge Timón
http://freico.in
not to always have to
double-spend the inputs of an order to cancel it.
--
Jorge Timón
http://freico.in/
--
Flow-based real-time traffic analytics software. Cisco certified tool.
Monitor traffic, SLAs, QoS, Medianet
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
Jorge Timón
http://freico.in/
--
Android apps run on BlackBerry 10
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
Jorge Timón
http://freico.in
On 1/10/14, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
Fair enough.
Do you see any case where an independently pow validated altcoin is
more secure than a merged mined one?
Situations where decentralized consensus systems are competing for
market share in some domain certainely apply. For instance
On 1/10/14, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
Come to think of it, we've got that exact situation right now: the new
Twister P2P Microblogging thing has a blockchain for registering
usernames that could have been easily done with Namecoin, thus in theory
Namecoin owners have an incentive to
On 1/6/14, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 01:27:42AM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:
It's not meant to prove anything - the proof-of-sacrificed-bitcoins
mentioned(*) in it is secure only if Bitcoin itself is secure and
functional. I referred you to it because
On 1/4/14, David Vorick david.vor...@gmail.com wrote:
If you have the resources to attack one of the bigger altcoins, you
probably have a significant investment in the cryptocurrency space, and a
significant interest in protecting it. Compromising even something like
dogecoin would cause a lot
On 1/3/14, Troy Benjegerdes ho...@hozed.org wrote:
'make' should check the hash.
An attacker could replace that part of the makefile.
Anyway, I think this is more oriented for compiled binaries, not for
people downloading the sources. I assume most of that people just use
git.
The binary
On 1/1/14, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 01:14:05AM +, Luke-Jr wrote:
On Monday, December 30, 2013 11:22:25 PM Peter Todd wrote:
that you are using merge-mining is a red-flag because without majority,
or
at least near-majority, hashing power an attacker
On 1/3/14, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 08:14:25PM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:
You assume the value of a crypto-currency is equal to all miners, it's
not.
They should be able to sell the reward at similar prices in the market.
Attackers are losing
On 12/31/13, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
remember suggesting that we whack Google Analytics or
some other statistics package on when the new website design was done and
that was rejected for similar reasons (organisations are bad).
Analytics software would be useful. I suggest using
, specially if (as you've shown to us)
you are not interested in learning why this proposal is unfeasible.
--
Jorge Timón
http://freico.in/
--
Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK
Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single
/gampad/clk?id=84349831iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
Jorge Timón
http://freico.in
/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
Jorge Timón
http://freico.in/
--
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced
and modified.
--
Jorge Timón
http://freico.in/
--
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get
On 9/17/13, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
Nobody has written code to use a better format, migrate old wallets, etc.
ACK, thanks.
--
LIMITED TIME SALE - Full Year of Microsoft Training For Just $49.99!
1,500+ hours
listreceivedbyaddress
listtransactions
sendmany
I think this would also leave a cleaner API, but I'm just interested
on what the objections would be to this removal.
How crazy does this sound?
Should we reconsider their removal for freicoin, proceed or create a
pull request for bitcoin?
--
Jorge Timón
desirable from a privacy standpoint.
Basically it reduces the privacy risks of doing the exchange to spending
the Zerocoins in the first place.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00878c30a45104c48fd4e8037cb5b3ba1e14dc4d8bef72eff1be
--
Jorge Timón
http://freico.in
.
On 7/13/13, Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org wrote:
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 11:51:14AM +0200, Jorge Timón wrote:
I don't see the need to peg zerocoins to bitcoins.
Without a bitcoin peg on the creation cost of zerocoins, it is hard for a
new alt-coin to have a stable value. Bitcoin itself
Sorry about that.
Maybe more important, what's wrong with bitcoin and zerocoin being
different currencies with an exchange rate completely decided by the
market instead of trying to force 1:1 ???
On 7/13/13, Jorge Timón jti...@monetize.io wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the whole proposal
proof stuff anyway.
I thought about this before, I like the idea very much.
Would such a fork be controversial for anyone?
Would anyone oppose to this for some reason I'm missing?
--
Jorge Timón
http://freico.in/
--
Precog
miner.
On Mar 11, 2013, at 7:01 AM, Jorge Timón jtimo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/10/13, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
It's also been suggested multiple times to make transaction outputs with
a value less than the transaction fee non-standard, either with a fixed
constant or by some sort
Say Alice signs and broadcasts a tx with input Ai, with SIGHASH_SINGLE
to Ao and SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY
Bob signs and broadcasts a tx with input Bi, with SIGHASH_SINGLE to Bo
and SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY
Can Carol complete the tx so that it is valid to be published in the chain?
It only has to make Ai
for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
Jorge Timón
http://freico.in/
http://archive.ripple
enforcement (by technical means) built in.
On 11 February 2013 05:03, Jorge Timón jtimo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, you may be interested in a couple of related projects.
Colored coins uses satoshis to represent smart property, shares, IOUs
of another currency...Colored coins can be atomically traded
/index.php?topic=15527.0 thread
indicates it should be fine to post alternative development questions on
this.
--
Jorge Timón
http://freico.in/
http://archive.ripple-project.org/
--
Free Next-Gen Firewall Hardware Offer
Buy
/FreeJavaPerformanceDownload.html
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
Jorge Timón
warned him that I haven't really used them.
It would be nice to also have a list with smartphone clients near the
list that is being prepared.
--
Jorge Timón
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event
On 4/12/12, Jeff Garzik jgar...@exmulti.com wrote:
1. N = 1 or 2 or whatever the community prefers. Ideally enough time
for a third-tier miner, mining strange TXs, finds a block.
2. H1 = height of block chain, when a TX is received
3. H2 = H1 + (144 * N)
4. If block chain height reaches
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
Jorge Timón
--
This SF email is sponsosred by:
Try
Sounds great.
Does it support merged mining?
Also, I'm a bit skeptic about it being chain agnostic. I want to
implement a chain with demurrage and I think I'll need to also change
coinWallet and not only create an implementation of the interface
Chain.
Anyway, this will make the task much easier.
It may be a political issue, but I don't think wikipedia becomes a
political organization for being against censorship.
This is not about left or right. Is about free speech, one of the
basic principles not only of freedom but also of democracy.
And as Gregory shows it clearly affects bitcoin
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
