On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:09:23AM -0800, Jeremy Spilman wrote:
If I understand correctly, the risk here is this would open a
historically large discrepancy between MIN_RELAY and the expected
minimum fee to actually obtain block inclusion. I don't know if
that's true, but I think that's what
Now we're starting to see the first companies deploy BIP70, we're
encountering a need for identity delegation. This need was long foreseen by
the way: it's not in BIP70 because, well, we had to draw the line for v1
somewhere, and this is an issue that mostly affects payment processors. But
I
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Troy Benjegerdes ho...@hozed.org wrote:
Either the transaction fees are sufficient to pay the cost for whatever
random junk anyone wants to put there, or they are not, and if they are
not, then I suggest you re-think the fee structure rather than trying
to
On 2/28/14, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
As usual, you don't need a hardfork.
Anyway, one-sided trade is sufficient to get a functioning marketplace
up and running and test out the many other issues with this stuff prior
to forking anything.
I'm totally FOR experimenting with this as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Transaction fees are a DoS mitigating cost to the person making the
transaction, but they are generally not paid to the people who
actually incur costs in validating the blockchain. Actual transaction
processing costs are an externality that is
On 02/28/2014 07:25 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
Transaction fees are a DoS mitigating cost to the person making the
transaction, but they are generally not paid to the people who
actually incur costs in validating the blockchain. Actual transaction
processing costs are an externality that is
On 28 February 2014 14:42, Warren Togami Jr. wtog...@gmail.com wrote:
https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/commit/db4d8e21d99551bef4c807aa1534a074e4b7964d
In one way in particular, the transaction fees per kilobyte completely
failed to account for the actual cost to the network. If
We currently have subtle positive feedback of a signed payment request in
the form of the green background. Unsigned requests simply show up without
the green background, as well as requests which provide a certificate but
have a missing or invalid signature.
There's a open bug (#3628) and
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Jeremy Spilman jer...@taplink.co wrote:
There's a open bug (#3628) and pull request (#3684) to provide negative
feedback (yellow background) for a missing or invalid signature, but it
seems like there's some debate on whether bitcoind should do that...
The
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 23:26:57 -0800, Wladimir laa...@gmail.com wrote:Such a thing would be interesting for a future BIP standard. I see one problem here: for an unsigned payment request there isn't really an "origin". Browser URI handlers don't send the referrer either.Yeah, good point. If you
10 matches
Mail list logo
