On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 12:12 AM, Bradley Denby via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> That's right, the idea is to choose Dandelion relays independently from
> whether they support Dandelion. If the chosen nodes do not support
> Dandelion, then the transactions are fluffed. Otherwise, the transactions
> are re
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 9:05 PM, Pieter Wuille
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 07:37 Bradley Denby via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the comments Pieter!
>>
>> We can make descriptions for the intended node behaviors more clear in
>> the BIP.
>>
>> R
Hi,
On June 25, 2018 12:47 PM, Tomas Susanka via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> From my perspective those are exactly the points I have felt strongly
> about. I still think "typed records" would be a better choice, but it's
> something I'm willing to compromise on. As I'm looking at the draft, we
> curre
Hi
> As was partially brought up by William, shouldn't we consider using
> bech32? It doesn't break on double-click and it is a dependency for
> native Segwit addresses anyway, so wallets might already support it or
> they will at some point. But we should probably run some numbers on this
> first,
Hi,
this is great.
On 23.6.2018 00:28, Achow101 via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After reading the comments here about BIP 174, I would like to propose the
> following changes:
From my perspective those are exactly the points I have felt strongly
about. I still think "typed records" would
