Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: Proposal to update BIP-32

On 08/05/16 15:48, Marek Palatinus via bitcoin-dev wrote: > unambiguously be used to refer to an idea. My suggestion would be to write > a new BIP that overrides parts of BIP32, and then put a note in BIP32 that > a better mechanism is available that is unlikely to change things in > reality for

[bitcoin-dev] Fwd: Proposal to update BIP-32

I received this: -- Forwarded message -- From: Pieter Wuille Date: Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal to update BIP-32 To: Marek Palatinus Cc: Bitcoin Dev On Thu,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal to update BIP-32

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Pavol Rusnak via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On 21/04/16 14:08, Marek Palatinus via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> Sipa, you are probably the most competent to answer this. >> Could you please tell us your opinion? For me, this is >>

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compact Block Relay BIP

Interesting, can you provide some historical context around it so I understand better ? Actually I know that your relay's protocol (and about what I see in abstract) was about optimizing propagation time and not bandwidth. And I agree that bandwidth is what need to be optimized for nodes. So far

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal to update BIP-32

On 21/04/16 14:08, Marek Palatinus via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Sipa, you are probably the most competent to answer this. > Could you please tell us your opinion? For me, this is > straightforward, backward compatible fix and I like it a lot. > Not sure about the process of changing "Final" BIP

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compact Block Relay BIP

(This response was originally off-list as moderators were still deciding, here it is for those interested). Hi Tom, Thanks for reading the draft text and commenting! Replies inline. Matt On 05/08/16 00:40, Johnathan Corgan wrote: > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Tom