hear it) but that seems
Such a bloom filter was present in the Bits of Proof block store in its last
public version, so the idea obvious, but not new.
It did support well scanning for BIP32 addresses as the query set extends
while progressing.
Tamas Blummer
signature.asc
Description: Message
think that squeezing all possible language bindings into a project
is also unproductive.
The language binding would be an independent and separately hosted project only
using the C interface of the libconsensus library.
Tamas Blummer
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using
and now comes handy to create a side chain.
Don't assume your prior experience with other commercial projects
Acquire some before you claim its useless.
Tamas Blummer
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
innovation
that is no longer measured on unapologetic compatibility with a given code
base, but its services to end user.
Tamas Blummer
Bits of Proof
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
--
Dive
. Broadcasting
double spend only if it is actually replacing an earlier - for whatever reason,
would simplify internal consensus logic .
Tamas Blummer
Bits of Proof
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
reputation? Ignore both to be
on the safe side?
Tamas Blummer
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored
with
higher fees to some of its nodes simultaneously.
Merchants will catch and reject most of the attempts, but that will not stop
the scheme in a setup where customer are anonymous and distant.
Miner will see a mixed picture and will struggle to act “honestly” on a
statistical measure.
Tamas Blummer
.
Tamas Blummer
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot
On Feb 12, 2015, at 9:49 AM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
How does my replace-by-fee patch *not* do that?
Does it broadcast a double spend only if it IS replacing an earlier? If yes, I
am fine with it.
Tamas Blummer
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using
only
relay double spend if it actually replaces an earlier transaction, as otherwise
the replace logic that is according to your commit more than just fee
comparison, would have to be replicated in the proprietary stack and mempool
might get out of sync with that of the border router.
Tamas
as it was
present in the merkle tree proof with a different hash than it gets for the tx
with its own serialization or from the raw message.
Tamas Blummer
Bits of Proof
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Not a fix, but would reduce the financial risk, if nodes were not relaying
excessive fee transactions.
Tamas Blummer
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
--
New Year. New Location. New
You mean an isolated signing device without memory right?
An isolated node would still know the transactions substantiating its coins,
why would it sign them away to fees ?
Tamas Blummer
On Jan 23, 2015, at 4:47 PM, slush sl...@centrum.cz wrote:
Correct, plus the most likely scenario
Justus,
In contrary.
Not being in the jurisdiction of the wallet provider makes it harder for the
user to reclaim funds taken by the wallet provider.
The legal hurdle to force confiscation through a wallet provider might also be
lower if the target user is not domestic.
Tamas Blummer
Knowing the private key and owning the linked coins is not necessarily the same
in front of a court.
At least in german law there is a difference between ‘Eigentum' means ownership
and ‘Besitz’ means ability to deal with it.
Being able to deal with an asset does not make you the owner.
Tamas
I am not a lawyer, just thinking loud.
I think that technology is a strong argument before court, but I suspect that
it is just that, as of now.
Tamas Blummer
On Jan 20, 2015, at 6:47 PM, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.name wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 January 2015, at 6:44 pm, Tamas Blummer wrote
. Simultaneously
the block candidates
would be submitted to a Bitcoin burn lottery with 1/n odds, so the security of
the side chain roughly equals that of Bitcoin at every successful burn mined
checkpoint.
Tamas Blummer
Bits of Proof
On Dec 16, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote
The output has to be burned otherwise there is no cost of expressing
any number of alternate opinions the same time.
Tamas Blummer
Bits of Proof
On Dec 15, 2014, at 3:55 PM, Isidor Zeuner cryptocurrenc...@quidecco.de wrote:
For every participant who could try to decide about the adequateness
within an adjustment period (measured in Bitcoin
blocks) is expected to rise in face of high fork rate. If the sample period
burn exceeds a target, then it would trigger a rise to the lottery criteria m,
reducing the fork rate and vs.
Tamas Blummer
Bits of Proof
On Dec 10, 2014, at 8:35 AM, Tamas
Burn mining side chains might be one of the foundation ideas for that
ecosystem, enabling permission-less merge mining for
anyone with interest in a side chain.
I am puzzled by the lack of feedback on the idea.
Tamas Blummer
Bits of Proof
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
disabling re-use of a burn,
for a later reorg.
Tamas Blummer
Bits of Proof
On Dec 15, 2014, at 1:39 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:21:01AM +0100, Tamas Blummer wrote:
Burn mining side chains might be one of the foundation ideas for that
ecosystem, enabling
Isodor: Rational Miner will include burn transaction for fee, no doubt.
Censoring transactions is against Bitcoin’s core values, unlikely to get wide
support for any form of that.
Patrick: Mining is at cost even if following the rules. No change to that.
Tamas Blummer
Bits of Proof
with the bitcoin block hash it is included in.
The difficulty to mine with burn would be dynamic and would also imply a
floating exchange rate between Bitcoin and the side coin.
Tamas Blummer
Bits of Proof
1172380e63346e3e915b52fcbae838ba958948ac9aa85edd
signature.asc
Description
Peter,
forking would work best with a freeze of the consensus code. Do you see any
chance for that?
Tamas Blummer
On Nov 7, 2014, at 1:03 AM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
Forking the codebase, rather than rewriting it, best
ensures that your code actually implements the protocol
the consensus code, studying its bugs appears more appropriate to me.
What we learn could define a hard fork or a better
chain we migrate to as discussed by blockstream.
Tamas Blummer
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
discussed earlier on bitcointalk.
Tamas Blummer
--
Slashdot TV. Videos for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=160591471iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
of rational mining is a viable
option, since no one needs permission to implement whatever optimization he
thinks is profitable and within the rules.
Tamas Blummer
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
I think there are three typical uses:
1. Building consensus on the block chain. This is what the core is for.
2. Single user wallets. This is where SPV alone is good.
3. Services e.g. exchange, payment processor This is where core + indexing
server talking SPV to core is the right choice
Wladimir,
what is missing is a decision to pull for the reference client.
Or did I missed that bit?
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
--
Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated
bit has a lot of meanings to geeks, so what.
bit means for average people:
- something very small, that 100 satoshi is.
- part of the name Bitcoin
- easy to get conversion 1 coin = 1 million bits = 1 Bitcoin
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
Founder, CEO
http://bitsofproof.com
On 03.05.2014, at 18:02
Excellent move Jeff.
Best would now be to establish XBT as the ISO code for bits.
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 02.05.2014, at 21:17, Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com wrote:
vendor hat: on
Related:
http://blog.bitpay.com/2014/05/02/bitpay-bitcoin-and-where-to-put
Yes, it is expensive but possible to discover any funds associated with a seed,
provided there are set limits to:
1. gap of address use (e.g. 20)
2. depth of hierarchy (e.g. 6)
3. gap in use of parallel branches (e.g. 0)
I would pick the limits in brackets above.
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
http
Actually gap in parallel branches already fails with BIP64 as it starts with
m/64'/…. without having m/63'
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 26.04.2014, at 12:59, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote:
Yes, it is expensive but possible to discover any funds associated
The problem is µBTC that bit tries to solve.
BTC, mBTC and µBTC are just too similiar for enyone else than engineers. The
mixed use of them leads to misunderstanding.
I think adoption would benefit of a single unit with easily remembered and
associated name that has no smaller than 1/100
The most useful meta data to optimize chain scan is the key birth date, then
the allowed gap size.
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 23.04.2014, at 20:39, Tier Nolan tier.no...@gmail.com wrote:
Different users could have different gap limit requirements. 20 seems very
low
be accessed
at random order.
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 23.04.2014, at 21:00, Tier Nolan tier.no...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Pavol Rusnak st...@gk2.sk wrote:
Setting the gap limit to high is just a small extra cost in that case.
Not if you have 100 accounts
Pieter suggested in IRC couple of months ago to append key birth to key
serialization in xprv….@unixtime format.
What about picking this idea up in BIP64? It would greatly help the importing
client.
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
signature.asc
Description: Message signed
On 23.04.2014, at 21:55, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
Any wallet should import all the coins just fine, it just wouldn't *use* any
account other than 0. Remember addresses are used to receive bitcoins; once
the UTXOs are in the wallet, they are no longer associated with the address
or
On 23.04.2014, at 22:02, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 8:01:16 PM Tamas Blummer wrote:
On 23.04.2014, at 21:55, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
Any wallet should import all the coins just fine, it just wouldn't *use*
any account other than 0. Remember addresses
must define some more detailed wallet
file
format (which could be built on top of this).
On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 8:04:35 PM you wrote:
On 23.04.2014, at 22:02, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 8:01:16 PM Tamas Blummer wrote:
The wallet has to know how it got
Extra encoding for testnet is quite useless complexity in face of many alt
chains.
BIPS should be chain agnostic.
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 22.04.2014, at 10:35, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.name wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 April 2014, at 4:11 am, Matt Whitlock wrote
I do not suggest to encode the chain, in contrary.
I consider the encoding of main and testnet in WIF and BIP32 as legacy, that I
ignore, and suggest that new BIPs should no longer carry this forward.
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
signature.asc
Description: Message signed
that testnet is far less important than to be addressed
in every future BIP.
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 22.04.2014, at 19:07, Jan Møller jan.mol...@gmail.com wrote:
Treating testnet differently is quite the norm, we have that in BIP 32, 38,
70, SIPA private keys (no BIP
.
Regarding XBT: No matter who used it for what. The way Bloomberg will use it
will define its use in finance,
and since that did not happen yet, we are not late to shape.
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 21.04.2014, at 07:41, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 21
for
convinience,
but to align Bitcoin with capabilities of existing financial software and
customs of finance and average people,
and ISO standard of currency abbreviations.
bit and XBT seems to check the boxes.
I would love to have some feedback on xbit as per my previous mail.
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
http
. Bloomberg.
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 21.04.2014, at 14:14, Un Ix slashdevn...@hotmail.com wrote:
Tamas,
xbit is only a typo or spelling error away from XBT, and some folks may
assume they refer to the same unit of measure, not knowing the new currency
system
the earlier going back to March 2013 and a poll at that time pushing
for XBT being 1 bit
https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg04256.html
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 20.04.2014, at 16:53, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com wrote:
I
of finance customs and
average Joe’s.
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 21.04.2014, at 07:41, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 21, 2014 3:37 AM, Un Ix slashdevn...@hotmail.com wrote:
Something tells me this would be reduced to a single syllable in common
full blocks
configurable to ranges, so people can tailor to their bandwith and space
available.
Tamas Blummer
Bits of Proof
On 09.04.2014, at 21:25, Wladimir laa...@gmail.com wrote:
Adding a RPC call for a address - utxo query wouldn't be a big deal. It
has been requested before for other
You ask why people would install this ?
I find it is odd that we who hold the key to instant machine to machine micro
payments do not use it to incentivise committing resources to the network.
What about serving archive blocks to peers paying for it ?
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
nothing else than
consensus and stores nothing else needed for that task and offering SPV api to
the wallets.
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 10.04.2014, at 11:17, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
I find it is odd that we who hold the key to instant machine to machine micro
payments do
Thanks, Peter and you convinced me. I run away with a thought.
It’d be great to find a spot to deploy payment channels, but I agree this is
not it.
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 10.04.2014, at 12:40, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
1) There is no catch 22 as there are plenty
.
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 09.04.2014, at 17:29, Wladimir laa...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
This is primarily aimed at developers of SPV wallets.
The recently reported decrease in number of full nodes could have several
reasons, one of them that less people are running
I am glad that SPV wallets are discussed outside the scope of mobile devices!
Yes, SPV is a sufficient API to a trusted node to build sophisticated features
not offered by the core.
SPV clients of the border router will build their own archive and indices based
on their interest of the chain
Block header has to be available in SPV and also in an UTXO only storing core
node, so why not serve it if bandwith allows.
Serving any additional information like known peer adresses or known full
blocks is certainly beneficial and should be offered if at hand.
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
http
also serve as archive node evtl. also offering blocks
at bulk e.g. through http.
Enterprises that run a multi tiered environment have the bandwith to serve as
archives.
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 08.04.2014, at 05:44, Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com wrote:
Being Mr. Torrent, I've
Pieter,
your suggestion has charm since “Bitcoin seed” would even not need
a global dictionary like the interpretation of the first level, since it would
be self describing.
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 08.04.2014, at 15:53, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com wrote
I rather prefer to start with SPV and upgrade to full node, if desired.
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 07.04.2014, at 19:40, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
Actually, I wonder if we should start shipping (auditable) pre-baked
databases calculated up to the last checkpoint so
on the service bits for an archive node?
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 07.04.2014, at 20:23, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
* Sent 456.5 gb data
At my geographic service location (Singapore), this cost about $90 last month
for bandwidth alone.
One of the reasons I initiated the (now
ranges.
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 07.04.2014, at 20:49, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote:
BTW, did we already agree on the service bits for an archive node?
I'm still very concerned
.
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 07.04.2014, at 21:02, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote:
Once a single transaction in pruned in a block, the block is no longer
eligible to be served to other nodes
Once headers are loaded first there is no reason for sequential loading.
Validation has to be sequantial, but that step can be deferred until the blocks
before a point are loaded and continous.
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 07.04.2014, at 21:03, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com
before it, to leave room for reorgs.
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 07.04.2014, at 21:13, Mark Friedenbach m...@monetize.io wrote:
On 04/07/2014 12:20 PM, Tamas Blummer wrote:
Validation has to be sequantial, but that step can be deferred until the
blocks before a point are loaded
of RAM.
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 07.04.2014, at 21:30, Paul Lyon pml...@hotmail.ca wrote:
I hope I'm not thread-jacking here, apologies if so, but that's the approach
I've taken with the node I'm working on.
Headers can be downloaded and stored in any order, it'll make
the process.
I will shortly adapt my code and check your test vectors.
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 29.03.2014, at 09:05, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.name wrote:
Abstract: A method is described for dividing a Bitcoin private key into
shares in a manner
,
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 29.03.2014, at 09:05, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.name wrote:
Abstract: A method is described for dividing a Bitcoin private key into
shares in a manner such that the key can be reconstituted from any
sufficiently large subset of the shares
be identified.
I wonder how others weight security vs. usability in these questions.
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On Saturday, 29 March 2014, at 6:22 pm, Tamas Blummer wrote:
It might make sense to store the number of shares needed. I know it is not
needed by math, but could help
On 29.03.2014, at 18:46, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
In this case I don't see anything wrong with specifying secret
sharing, but I think— if possible— it should be carefully constructed
so that the same polynomials and interpolation code can be used for
threshold signatures (when
out of the hell of addresses. Business relationships are
terminated by the parties at their own and not bey algorithms and timeouts.
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 28.03.2014, at 12:38, Wladimir laa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Andreas Schildbach
in both directions for whatever reason, where refund is
and payment are not special compared to 1st installment, overpayed back
or tip or whatever extra charge arises later.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote:
Yes, you begin to see that the payment
On 28.03.2014, at 14:00, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
What is too abstract in a contact list ? If the payment comes with a tag like
refund the UI could display as such and if it comes with e.g. VAT then that.
How is this any different? The tag in this case is the address and the
On 28.03.2014, at 13:27, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
It is not more effort than an auto remembered call-in phone number. You
delete if you do not care. The difference however is that it would be a clean
protocol for repeated payments in both directions for whatever reason, where
On 28.03.2014, at 16:23, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
So I take it BOPShop won't be supporting BIP70 then? :(
Supporting BIP70 by BitPay or BopShop is a cake since it does no more then they
did without it.
I am not in opposition but see no reason to be enthusiastic about it. I will
once
On 28.03.2014, at 17:34, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
Supporting BIP70 by BitPay or BopShop is a cake since it does no more then
they did without it.
I am not in opposition but see no reason to be enthusiastic about it. I will
once the spec goes
further than what was possible before.
May I ask how the current payment protocol is supposed to handle salaries? I
hope you do not assume the employee creates a payment request, since he does not
even calculate the amount. There you go where a channel I described is
definitelly needed.
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote:
May I ask how the current payment protocol is supposed to handle salaries?
It doesn't.
walk before you run and all that; lets see what problems we run into with
the minimal payment protocol we have now (like refund outputs you have
We had a similar meeting with Andreas Schildbach (Android Bitcoin Wallet), Jan
Moller, Andreas Petersson (Mycelium), Thomas V (Electrum), Tamas Blummer,
Tamas Bartfai (Bits of Proof)
at the Inside Bitcoin Conference in Berlin.
I remember that there were different opinions on how to use
I think not all alts (will) have magic numbers, at least not those defined e.g.
with colored coins on top of an other chain.
Also note that the index should have MSB cleared as it would otherwise indicate
private derivation.
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 27.03.2014, at 16
or 0.003578 BTC will never be as accepted as 3558 bits would be.
Tamas Blummer
Bits of Proof
On 14.03.2014, at 15:05, Andreas Schildbach andr...@schildbach.de wrote:
btw. None of Bitcoin Wallet's users complained about confusion because
of the mBTC switch. In contrast, I get many mails
convert to local currency.
Tamas Blummer
Bits of Proof
On 14.03.2014, at 15:49, Andreas Schildbach andr...@schildbach.de wrote:
How much do you pay for an Espresso in your local currency?
At least for the Euro and the Dollar, mBTC 3.56 is very close to what
people would expect. Certainly more
.
With 1 bit = 100 satoshi, we would solve this problem for good.
Instead mBTC is a confusing step in-between.
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 14.03.2014, at 16:02, Andreas Schildbach andr...@schildbach.de wrote:
By that definition 3.56 is a price. Maybe I misunderstood you and you're
Jeff's arguments are understood and supported by those who worked in finance.
Existing financial applications have often problems dealing with more than 2
decimals.
People who work in finance are used to two decimals.
Neither systems nor people in finance have a problem with large numbers
.
Not suprised that people dealing with real world finance problems
and people who are not engineers come to the same conclusion.
Welcome Alan!
Why not add 'bit' as an option or even default to Armory?
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
Founder, CEO
Bits of Proof
http://bitsofproof.com
signature.asc
Description
://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/31640769/
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
Founder, CEO
Bits of Proof
http://bitsofproof.com
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
--
Learn Graph
It costs at least 5430 satoshis to create an output at the moment.
Is the same spam limit applied if the script is OP_RETURN?
If not, I would be concerned od opening a cheap spam.
Tamas Blummer
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Wladimir laa...@gmail.com wrote:
And if this is not abused
At least Trezor and bitcoinj (Multibit) seems to be going in this way,
which is 100% of clients which expressed interest in bip39 :-).
slush
The the current spec with TREZOR's wordlist is also implemented by Bits of Proof
.
Tamas Blummer
--
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from
the latest
Since the payment request is available from a location defined in the URI,I think it would be appropriate to attach the PaymentACK once paymentaccepted by Merchant.This would make the request and receipt available for later review.Regards,Tamás BlummerFounder, CEOhttp://bitsofproof.com
Would not an SPV bitcoind transfer all control on validation rules to miner?A majority coalition of miner (pool operator) might even decide to change block rewardrules if the rest of the network only verifies POW.Regards,Tamás BlummerFounder, CEOhttp://bitsofproof.com
be backward compatible and cleaner
going forward.
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
--
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
Build for Windows Store.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows
versions are supposed to preserve fields from the future.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote:
Hi Mike,
The issue with the current parser is that those fields are conditionally
optional on that there will be no subsequent fields added
ever figured out how to use and the protocol
uses a mixture of byte orders, so an optional field in the version message is
really not such a big deal :)
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote:
I agree that this can be deferred until there is an actual new
/ExtendedKey.java
Tamas Blummer
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
--
Try New Relic Now We'll Send You this Cool Shirt
New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service
There is a modular, modern, open source implementation of the BItcoin protocol
with properties, e.g. remote wallet, you look for at bitcoingrant. It is Bits
of Proof. A supported and hosted product launched at the BItcoin2013.
You find the source at https://github.com/bitsofproof/supernode and
94 matches
Mail list logo
