; as it was originally. However, we could use a modified version of BIP 9
> by using one of the top three bits and a longer locked-in period as a
> grace period for all users to upgrade.
>
> On Sunday, February 05, 2017 9:50:26 PM Andrew C via
> bitc
e bits and a longer locked-in period as a
grace period for all users to upgrade.
>
> On Sunday, February 05, 2017 9:50:26 PM Andrew C via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Many people have expressed discontent with Luke-jr's proposed block size
>> BIP, i
On 10/27/2016 11:38 AM, Andrew via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I have been reading recently through the history of soft forks
> provided by Bitcoin Core:
> https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/43538/where-can-i-find-a-record-of-blockchain-soft-forks.
>
> It has led me to think that there is a
On 10/17/2016 7:17 AM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> As Marek wrote just minutes before your email came in; companies will not
> roll out their updates until it locks in. Peter Todd says the same thing.
> So your assumption that the lock-in time is the END of the upgrading is
> false.
On 10/16/2016 4:58 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Lets get back to the topic. Having a longer fallow period is a simple way to
> be safe. Your comments make me even more scared that safety is not taken
> into account the way it would.
Can you please explain how having a longer grace
On 9/10/2016 5:41 AM, Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 3. After a few months or so, publish the private key.
Why wait a few months? Why not just publish the key a few days after the
final alert?
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
With 0.12 and opt-in RBF, nSequence will have multiple uses. It can be used
for locktime and now signaling for opting in to RBF. However, there is
nothing that I could find that distinguishes the uses for nSequence.
Spending a time locked output requires setting nSequence to less than
MAX_INT but
Ahh. I see. Thanks, I must have missed that when going through the BIP.
Guess I need to read more carefully next time.
Thanks,
Andrew
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 11:11 PM David A. Harding <d...@dtrt.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 04:36:58PM +0000, Andrew C via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
In the release notes for 0.12, it says that we have moved from using
OpenSSL to libsecp256k1 for signature validation. So what else is it being
used for that we need to keep it as a dependency?
Thanks,
Andrew
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
.
- Currently working on technical BIP draft and implementation, hopefully
for ScalingBitcoin.org. Only the PDF is publicly available as of today.
- Yes, the initial deployment is in the same manner as size votes.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Andrew C via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev
Hi all,
Is there any client or code that currently implements BIP 100? And how will
it be deployed? WIll the initial fork be deployed in the same manner that
the max block size changes are deployed described in the bip?
Thanks
___
bitcoin-dev mailing
11 matches
Mail list logo
