I've been trying to keep our discussion off-list because it is off-topic, but
you keep adding the list back on in your replies.
http://steamforge.net/wiki/images/2/29/Settings-Firewall-Advanced.png
Settings > Firewall > Advanced Configuration > Outbound Protocol Control > All
Other Protocols
Isn't this all backward? The "authority" component of the URL should identify
the chain, and the "path" component should identify the particular block, tx,
or address in that chain.
So instead of:
bitcoin:12345 *is* a real URI. It's just not an absolute, hierarchical URI
(a.k.a. a URL); rather, it's an opaque URI.
And your suggestion is actually in violation of the URI spec, since
blockhash, txid, block, and address are not host names.
More correct would be:
That's still not right, since mainnet and testnet are not host names.
You'd have to do something like:
blockchain:?network=testnettxid=3b95a766d7a99b87188d6875c8484cb2b310b78459b7816d4dfc3f0f7e04281a
On Saturday, 29 August 2015, at 7:58 pm, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wrote:
What about
/90 * 20 = 0.1 BTC
... Or $2.50 at today's exchange rate.
That seems excessive.
--
Gavin Andresen
On Aug 28, 2015, at 5:15 PM, Matt Whitlock via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
This is the best proposal I've seen yet. Allow me
This is the best proposal I've seen yet. Allow me to summarize:
• It addresses the problem, in Jeff Garzik's BIP 100, of miners selling their
block-size votes.
• It addresses the problem, in Gavin Andresen's BIP 101, of blindly trying to
predict future market needs versus future technological
Why would you use a hash of hashes? Wouldn't it be simpler and just as
effective to use either:
1) the genesis block hash, or
2) the block hash of the first block in a fork?
Every block hash in a chain implicitly subsumes the genesis block hash of that
chain, so there's no need to incorporate
On Tuesday, 25 August 2015, at 1:16 pm, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
What would you think of an approach like John Dillon's proposal to
explicitly give the economic majority of coin holders a vote for the max
blocksize? Miners could still vote BIP100 style for what max they were
willing
On Tuesday, 25 August 2015, at 1:37 pm, Peter Todd wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 04:26:23PM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 August 2015, at 1:16 pm, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
What would you think of an approach like John Dillon's proposal to
explicitly give the
Great data points, but isn't this an argument for improving Electrum Server's
database performance, not for holding Bitcoin back?
(Nice alias, by the way. Whimmy wham wham wozzle!)
On Thursday, 23 July 2015, at 5:56 pm, Slurms MacKenzie via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Similar to the Bitcoin Node Speed
You should rename your file to something like bip-draft-dynamic-rate-lookup.
Using an arbitrary BIP number will cause confusion when that BIP number is
actually assigned later.
On Friday, 17 July 2015, at 3:50 pm, David Barnes | Bitcoin Co. Ltd. via
bitcoin-dev wrote:
I picked up the next
11 matches
Mail list logo
