Just some general comments on this topic/discussion.
I suspect that there exist no algorithms which cannot be done better in
an application-specific device than in a general purpose computer. And
if there is such a thing, then it must necessarily perform best on one
specific platform, making t
Multi-sig requires infrastructure. It isn't a magic wand that we can
wave to make everyone secure. The protocols and techniques necessary
don't exist yet, and apparently no one has much of an incentive to
create them.
I mean no offense, and I don't mean to pick on you. Your post stuck out
w
Matt Whitlock wrote:
> The creation date in your BIP header has the wrong format. It should be
> 01-04-2014, per BIP 1.
>
At first, I thought this was a second April Fool's joke, but then I
looked and saw that all of the BIPs really do use this format. As far
as I can tell, we are using this in
Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
> Mark Friedenbach wrote:
>> Bitcoin is not a centralized system, and neither is its development. I
>> don't even know how to respond to that. Bringing up altchains is a total
>> red herring.
>>
>> This is *bitcoin*-development. Please don't make it have to become a
>> moder
I was trying to use bip10 for multisig and coinjoin, but there was a
problem with it. I'll have to look back at my notes, but I thought I
sent you a message about it. And then real life swallowed my bitcoin time...
I think the bottom line was that it would be useful in the generic case
with j
Ryan Carboni wrote:
And the economic parameters of bitcoin are not fixed in stone. If
there needs to be a change, it will be messy but it could happen.
Need is an awfully big word. One thing we are certain of is that some
guy telling us all that we are wrong is nowhere near the "need" level.
Ryan Carboni wrote:
Bitcoin lacks a Central Bank.
This is a feature, not a bug.
Also, this is offtopic. Political debate is thataway ->.
bitcoin-development is for development and technical discussion.
--
Sponsored
After reading all 99 messages in this thread, I think allowfee is just
about perfect.
It effectively lets merchants to give an allowance against the purchase
price for network fees, if they choose. It is still up to the sender
(and/or the sender's software) to get the fees right. Sometimes t
One of the things that really gets me going is when someone devises a
model, tests it against itself, and then pretends that they've learned
something about the real world.
Naturally, the Selfish Mining paper is exactly this sort of nonsense.
Their model is one with no latency, and one where t
Any reason not to use actual HTTP codes? I'm not aware of any major
deficiency in them. Most of them won't apply to us, which is fine, they
don't seem to apply to HTTP either. We can extend the scheme on our own
if we find a good reason to.
That implies 16 bits, or a varint. I would avoid
The HTTP status code system seems to work well enough, and seems to give
the best of both worlds. A 3 digit numeric code that is
machine-readable, and a freeform text note for humans.
The clever part about that system was in realizing that the numeric
codes didn't need to account for every pos
Pieter Wuille wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> here is an idea i've bean writing up: https://gist.github.com/1237788
>
> I hope it can start some discussion about moving away from static bitcoin
> addresses
> as descriptions for transactions. I suppose it's a candidate for a
> BIP/BEPS/BFC/...,
> but
Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 8:56:24 AM kjj wrote:
>> Luke-Jr wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:57:00 PM Gavin Andresen wrote:
>>>> I'm looking for review of this pull request:
>>>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitco
Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:57:00 PM Gavin Andresen wrote:
>> I'm looking for review of this pull request:
>>https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/517
> "Non-standard" transactions, or those with "insufficient" fees should not be
> penalised. These are properly relay/m
Gavin Andresen wrote:
> Background:
>
> Timejacking:
>http://culubas.blogspot.com/2011/05/timejacking-bitcoin_802.html
>
> And a recent related exploit launched against the low-difficulty
> alternative chains:
>https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=43692.msg521772#msg521772
>
>
> Seems to
15 matches
Mail list logo
