On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 06:33:44PM -0400, Peter Todd wrote:
> > Thoughts? If there are no objections I'll go ahead and write that code,
> > using the same thresholds as BIP66.
>
> I've opened a pull-req to deploy CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY via the
> I
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 06:33:44PM -0400, Peter Todd wrote:
> Thoughts? If there are no objections I'll go ahead and write that code,
> using the same thresholds as BIP66.
I've opened a pull-req to deploy CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY via the
IsSuperMajority() mechanism:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitc
It would be possible to run a simplified version of the bits proposal,
until BIP 66 locks.
It's obviously not worth it at this point though, though it could be 1-2
weeks more.
Version 2 means neither option
Version 3 means BIP 66 only
Version 4 means CLTV only
Version 5 means both
If (Version 3
Please do it.
On Jun 25, 2015 3:33 PM, "Peter Todd" wrote:
> BIP66 adoption is quite close to 95% and will likely be enforced for all
> blocks in a few more days; now is time to think about how CLTV will be
> deployed, particularly given its benefits to much-needed scalability
> solutions such as
BIP66 adoption is quite close to 95% and will likely be enforced for all
blocks in a few more days; now is time to think about how CLTV will be
deployed, particularly given its benefits to much-needed scalability
solutions such as payment channels.
While I'm both a fan and co-author of the Version
