A better solution is to just have the sending wallet check to see if the
address you are about to send to has been used before. If it's a fresh
address, it sends it through without any popup alert. If the address has
history going back a certain amount of time, then a popup comes up and
> If there is a split, it becomes 2 incompatible ledgers.
Not necessarily. When the BIP50 hard fork happened, it didn't create
two incompatible ledgers. It *could* have, but it didn't. If every
single transaction mined during that time has been "double spent" on
the other chain, then it would
I don't think the solution should be to "fix the replay attack", but
rather to "force the replay effect". The fact that transactions can be
relayed should be seen as a good thing, and not something that should
be fixed, or even called an "attack".
The solution should be to create a "bridge" that
I approve of this idea. Counterparty has the same problem. Their API
returns a unsigned transaction that is formed differently from how
other unsigned transactions, which causes friction. Someone needs to
write up a specification that is standardized so that all unsigned
transactions are of the
Its too bad you're not the one who decides what gets posted here or
not. If you don't like whats being discussed, then don't open those
On 1/7/17, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
> Can you guys please take this discussion elsewhere? Perhaps to
ibery, coercion, and other tomfoolery as 75% of the
> hashrate is ultimately only a dozen people or so.
> You have plenty of channels through which you can make your announcements,
> this particular one is not okay.
> On Jan 7, 2017 3:12 PM, "Chris P
Bitcoin Classic only activates if 75% of the network adopts it. That
is not irresponsible or dangerous. It would only be dangerous if it
activates at 50%, because that would create a situation where its not
clear which side of the fork has the most proof of work.
On 1/7/17, Eric Lombrozo via
> On 01/04/2017 11:06 PM, Chris Priest via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> On 1/3/17, Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev
>> <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> There are plenty, more sane options. If you can't run your own full-
On 1/3/17, Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev
> There are plenty, more sane options. If you can't run your own full-node
> as a merchant (trivial), maybe co-use a wallet-service with centralized
> verification (maybe use two of them), I guess Copay
>From my experience working with coin selection algorithms, there are
three "goals" to it:
1. Minimize cost
2. Maximize privacy
3. Minimize UTXO footprint
You can build a coin selection algorithm that achieves 1 and 3, but
will sacrifice 2. If you want coin selectin to maximize your privacy,
How does your system prevent against insider attacks? How do you know
the money is stolen by someone who compromised server #4, and not
stolen by the person who set up server #4? It is my understanding
these days most attacks are inside jobs.
On 8/24/16, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
On 6/30/16, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
> I would like to see a PGP-like "web of trust" proposal for both the
> security of the bitcoin network itself /and/ (eventually) of things like
> transmission of bitcoin addresses.
> Something where nodes
On 5/17/16, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
> We’ve been talking about doing this forever and it’s so desperately needed.
"So desperately needed"? How do you figure? The UTXO set is currently
1.5 GB. What kind of computer these days doesn't
Segwit requires work from exchanges, wallets and services in order for
adoption to happen. This is because segwit changes the rules regarding
the Transaction data structure. A blocksize increase does not change
the Transaction rules at all. The blocksize increase is a change to
Its mostly a problem for exchanges and miners. Those entities need to
be on the network 100% of the time because they are using the network
100% of the time. A normal wallet user isn't taking payments every few
minutes like the exchanges are. "Getting booted off the network" is
not something to
The term "mining centralization" is very common. It come up almost in
every single discussion relating to bitcoin these days. Some people
say "mining is already centralized" and other such things. I think
this is a very bad term, and people should stop saying those things.
Let me explain:
By that same logic, any wallet that implemented P2SH is also voting
for an increased block size, since P2SH results in smaller
transactions, in the same way SW results in smaller transactions.
On 12/19/15, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
> On Sat, Dec 19,
Block witholding attacks are only possible if you have a majority of
hashpower. If you only have 20% hashpower, you can't do this attack.
Currently, this attack is only a theoretical attack, as the ones with
all the hashpower today are not engaging in this behavior. Even if
someone who had a lot
On 12/19/15, Emin Gün Sirer wrote:
> Chris Priest is confusing these attacks with selfish mining, and further,
> his characterization of selfish mining is incorrect. Selfish Mining is
> guaranteed to yield profits for any pool over 33% (as a result, Nick
> Szabo has dubbed
Then shouldn't this be something the pool deals with, not the bitcoin protocol?
On 12/19/15, Matt Corallo <lf-li...@mattcorallo.com> wrote:
> Peter was referring to pool-block-withholding, not selfish mining.
> On December 19, 2015 7:34:26 PM PST, Chris Priest via bitcoin-dev
> In none of these cases do you lose anything.
Nor do you gain anything. Archive nodes will still need to exist
precisely because paper wallets don't include UTXO data. This is like
adding the ability to partially seed a movie with bittorrent. You
still need someone who has the whole thing has to
I proposed in my Wildcard Inputs BIP that the version field be split
in two. The first 4 bytes are version number (which in practice is
being used for script version), and the second 4 bits are used for
I don't think the BIP9 mechanism really applies to transactions. A
A wallet doesn't receive transactions from other wallets. That is what
a node does. Wallets just make transactions and then sends them to the
nodes. Nodes then send them to other nodes.
In the early days of bitcoin, all wallets were nodes, but now a lot of
wallets are just wallets with out any
I made a post a few days ago where I laid out a scheme for
implementing "coalescing transactions" using a new opcode. I have
since come to the realization that an opcode is not the best way to do
this. A much better approach I think is a new "transaction type" field
that is split off from the
> mining fee for any transaction that used this opcode.
> Please be blunt about any of my own misunderstandings that this email makes
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev <
> firstname.lastname@example.org> w
> effective it would really be.
> On 25 Nov 2015 12:48 a.m., "Chris Priest via bitcoin-dev" <
> email@example.com> wrote:
>> > This idea could be applied by having the wildcard signature apply to
>> > all
>> > UT
y holder intended all inputs to be
included. Hence the need for a new opcode.
btw, this scheme is definitely in the 10x or higher gain. You could
potentially spend an unlimited number of UTXOs this way.
On 11/24/15, Gavin Andresen <gavinandre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 201
Here is the problem I'm trying to solve with this idea:
Lets say you create an address, publish the address on your blog, and
tell all your readers to donate $0.05 to that address if they like
your blog. Lets assume you receive 10,000 donations this way. This all
adds up to $500. The problem is
Mail list logo