On Friday, 23 September 2016 13:42:36 CEST Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> > I have to disagree. That is not malleability. Creating a new document
> > and re- signing it is not changing anything. Its re-creating.
> > Something that the owner of the coin has every right to do.
> Same thin
On Friday, 23 September 2016 13:55:50 CEST Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Not sure if the comparison to XML and HTML holds: the lack of closing
> tags makes the meaning of individual tokens ambiguous, like I pointed
> out before. The use of segments gives at most two levels of nesting,
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 08:37:29PM +0200, Tom via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 September 2016 14:27:29 CEST Peter Todd wrote:
> > CSV uses per-input sequence numbers; you only have a per-tx equivalent.
>
> I think you misunderstand tagged systems at a very basic level. You think
> that h
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 02:09:38PM +0200, Tom via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Thursday 22 Sep 2016 13:10:49 Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> >
> > I think BIPs should be self-contained, or rely on previous BIPs,
> > whenever possible. Referencing an external formatting document should
> > be
On Thursday, 22 September 2016 21:59:12 CEST Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Hi Tom
>
> > I think you misunderstand tagged systems at a very basic level. You
> > think that html can only use a bold tag once in a document? Thats
> > equivalent to what you are saying.
>
> Would the "addi
Hi Tom
> I think you misunderstand tagged systems at a very basic level. You think
> that html can only use a bold tag once in a document? Thats equivalent
> to what you are saying.
Would the "additional" segment contain the same amount of
nSequence-equivalent token as the number of inputs in
On Thursday, 22 September 2016 14:26:18 CEST Peter Todd wrote:
> > «The way towards that flexibility is to use a generic concept made
> > popular various decades ago with the XML format. The idea is that we
> > give each field a name and this means that new fields can be added or
> > optional field
On Thursday, 22 September 2016 14:27:29 CEST Peter Todd wrote:
> CSV uses per-input sequence numbers; you only have a per-tx equivalent.
I think you misunderstand tagged systems at a very basic level. You think
that html can only use a bold tag once in a document? Thats equivalent
to what you
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:47:03AM +0200, Tom via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 Sep 2016 18:45:55 adiabat via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Hi-
> >
> > One concern is that this doesn't seem compatible with Lightning as
> > currently written. Most relevant is that non-cooperative channel close
> >
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:32:33AM +0200, Tom wrote:
> Thanks for your email Peter!
>
> On Tuesday 20 Sep 2016 17:56:44 Peter Todd wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 07:15:45PM +0200, Tom via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > > === Serialization order===
> > >
> > > The tokens defined above have to be seria
On Thursday 22 Sep 2016 13:10:49 Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:56:31AM +0200, Tom via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > On Wednesday 21 Sep 2016 18:01:30 Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Tom via bitcoin-dev
> > >
> > > wrote
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:56:31AM +0200, Tom via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 Sep 2016 18:01:30 Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Tom via bitcoin-dev
> >
> > wrote:
> > > BIP number for my FT spec.
> >
> > This document does not appear to be con
On Wednesday 21 Sep 2016 18:01:30 Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Tom via bitcoin-dev
>
> wrote:
> > BIP number for my FT spec.
>
> This document does not appear to be concretely specified enough to
> review or implement from it.
>
> For example, it doe
On Wednesday 21 Sep 2016 18:45:55 adiabat via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Hi-
>
> One concern is that this doesn't seem compatible with Lightning as
> currently written. Most relevant is that non-cooperative channel close
> transactions in Lightning use OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY, which references the
> seq
Hi-
One concern is that this doesn't seem compatible with Lightning as
currently written. Most relevant is that non-cooperative channel close
transactions in Lightning use OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY, which references the
sequence field of the txin; if the txin doesn't have a sequence number,
OP_CHECK
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Tom via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> BIP number for my FT spec.
This document does not appear to be concretely specified enough to
review or implement from it.
For example, it does not specify the serialization of "integer" (is it
a 32 bit word in network byte order or?)
On Wednesday 21 Sep 2016 14:00:23 Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Just glancing over your BIP, I wonder if we should use Protobuf. It uses
> this "flexible" format already and is quite compact/binary. We use
> Protobuf already for the payment protocol, and there is very good tool
> supp
Just glancing over your BIP, I wonder if we should use Protobuf. It uses
this "flexible" format already and is quite compact/binary. We use
Protobuf already for the payment protocol, and there is very good tool
support.
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitco
Thanks for your email Peter!
On Tuesday 20 Sep 2016 17:56:44 Peter Todd wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 07:15:45PM +0200, Tom via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > === Serialization order===
> >
> > The tokens defined above have to be serialized in a certain order for the
> > transaction to be well-formatt
On Tuesday 20 Sep 2016 21:31:47 Luke Dashjr wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 5:15:45 PM Tom via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > As the title suggests, I would like to formally request the assignment of
> > a
> > BIP number for my FT spec.
>
> Please open a pull request on the bitcoin/bips repo after
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 07:15:45PM +0200, Tom via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> === Serialization order===
>
> The tokens defined above have to be serialized in a certain order for the
> transaction to be well-formatted. Not serializing transactions in the
> order specified would allow multiple interpreta
On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 5:15:45 PM Tom via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> As the title suggests, I would like to formally request the assignment of a
> BIP number for my FT spec.
Please open a pull request on the bitcoin/bips repo after this has been
discussed a bit on the ML.
Note that at least a
As the title suggests, I would like to formally request the assignment of a
BIP number for my FT spec.
Thank you!
Source;
https://github.com/zander/bips/blob/FlexTrans/bip-.mediawiki
BIP: ??
Title: Flexible Transactions
Author: Tom Zander
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
23 matches
Mail list logo
