Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal - Dandelion: Privacy Preserving Transaction Propagation

2018-06-25 Thread Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal - Dandelion: Privacy Preserving Transaction Propagation

2018-06-25 Thread Bradley Denby via bitcoin-dev
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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 174 thoughts

2018-06-25 Thread Achow101 via bitcoin-dev
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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 174 thoughts

2018-06-25 Thread Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev
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,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 174 thoughts

2018-06-25 Thread Tomas Susanka via bitcoin-dev
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