Re: [bitcoin-dev] libconsensus and bitcoin development process

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > The problem comes with the impact of an unfocused stream of refactors to > key code. > > For example, there is much less long term developer impact if refactoring > were _accelerated_, scheduled to be performed in a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] libconsensus and bitcoin development process

I also share a lot of Jeff's concerns about refactoring and have voiced them several times on IRC and in private to Jorge, Wladamir and Greg. I meant to do a write up but never got around to it. Jeff has quite eloquently stated the various problems. I would like to share my thoughts on the matter

Re: [bitcoin-dev] libconsensus and bitcoin development process

Drak, I would say that the refactoring does actually fulfill some conditions you mention: - move-only is almost always clearly separated out - the refactoring is not controversial _in minimis_ - meaning, the individual pull request is not controversial. The problem comes with the impact of an

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Instant exchange rates URI scheme

This scheme would mostly be beneficial to end users of instant exchange wallets and would be implemented by the operators. None of the parameters would be filled up by the user by hand. It's more of enabling different wallet operators to communicate with each other and to be able to present to

Re: [bitcoin-dev] libconsensus and bitcoin development process

I basically agree with what has been said here. Refactoring efforts should be well-coordinated. Their short-term impact can be quite disruptive, although if done correctly, longer-term they make it even easier for downstream developers to add and merge changes. By scheduling move-only changes,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] URI scheme for signing and verifying messages

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 10:49:36 AM Arthur - bitcoin-fr.io wrote: > September 15 2015 6:04 AM, "Luke Dashjr" wrote: > > I think probably the whole signed message thing needs to be rethought. > > The most common "uses" today seem to be insecure cases that it doesn't > >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] URI scheme for signing and verifying messages

September 15 2015 6:04 AM, "Luke Dashjr" wrote: > I think probably the whole signed message thing needs to be rethought. The > most common "uses" today seem to be insecure cases that it doesn't actually > work in: people trying to prove ownership of bitcoins and/or that they sent

Re: [bitcoin-dev] URI scheme for signing and verifying messages

September 15 2015 2:10 PM, "Luke Dashjr" wrote: > On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 10:49:36 AM Arthur - bitcoin-fr.io wrote: > >> September 15 2015 6:04 AM, "Luke Dashjr" wrote: >>> I think probably the whole signed message thing needs to be rethought. >>> The

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Instant exchange rates URI scheme

Wouldn't need to. The is of BTC to . BTC is the intermediary currency, as is basically how it becomes in this "payment rails" method. To the receiver, it wouldn't matter what currency the transaction came from. On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Angel Leon wrote: > might

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Instant exchange rates URI scheme

Something very similar was posted not too long ago. Long and sort of it is, there is no point in saying you priced in GBP, etc, because it can vary from exchange to exchange. To be honest, adding more things to consider at checkout time confuses things; why not just specify the amount of Bitcoin