Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin pointers

Hi José > a) Canonical Pointers > The basic proposal.They look like this example: btc@170.1/179-631-520 > Here is a link to the Google Docs document -> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PBN4wKFYtgvDxV4DrWUdNe9Xqmb8GVxoIGDKRkY9Xr4/edit?usp=sharing > >

[bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin pointers

Hi, I’ve been doing some work lately to create a specification for bitcoin pointers. They can be used to point to transactions, inputs, outputs or some internal items within them. The proposals strive for simplicity and user friendliness over compactness or other attributes. There are three

Re: [bitcoin-dev] extended BIP9 activation of segwit, for legacy nodes

This[1] idea from April would assist in a BIP149-like segwit activation on November 16th. Its goal is to be incredibly easy to test and deploy, right now, even before a decision on revisions to BIP149 is made, and well before such "BIP149ish" testing is itself complete. UASFs don't need time for

Re: [bitcoin-dev] The BIP148 chain split may be inevitable

oops s/45%/35%/ On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 7:11 PM, Jorge Timón wrote: > On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev > wrote: >> Just a quick follow-up on BIP91's prospects of avoiding a BIP148 chain >> split, because I

Re: [bitcoin-dev] The BIP148 chain split may be inevitable

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Just a quick follow-up on BIP91's prospects of avoiding a BIP148 chain > split, because I may have left an overly pessimistic impression - > > In short: the timing isn't as dire as I

Re: [bitcoin-dev] The BIP148 chain split may be inevitable

> I believe that means 80% of hashrate would need to be running BIP91 > (signaling bit 4) by ~June 30 (so BIP91 locks in ~July 13, activates ~July > 27), not "a few days ago" as I claimed. So, tight timing, but not impossible. This is not needed, if segwit is locked in by aug 1 (with or

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP149 timeout-- why so far in the future?

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Martijn Meijering via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Jorge Timón wrote: > Why not just make sure BIP 149 will never activate unless BIP 141 has > expired unsuccessfully? Right, that would be part of it, as well as not removing the

[bitcoin-dev] BIP149 timeout-- why so far in the future?

Jorge Timón wrote: "My preference would be a bip149 proposal that could be merged and released now, but some people complain that would require more testing, because *if you deploy bip149 and then sw gets activated pre nov15, then you want bip149 nodes to use the old service bit for segwit*, not

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP149 timeout-- why so far in the future?

The current proposal assumes that bip149 would only be merged and released after nov15, so there's not time in one day. My preference would be a bip149 proposal that could be merged and released now, but some people complain that would require more testing, because if you deploy bip149 and then