[bitcoin-dev] Fwd: Services bit for xthin blocks

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Dave Scotese wrote: > I think a BIP is a good idea, but rather than making such a specific > proposal as "Let's use bit 4 to indicate communication of thin blocks," how > about a more general one like "Let's use bit(s?) 4(-5?) as user-agent

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Services bit for xthin blocks

I think a BIP is a good idea, but rather than making such a specific proposal as "Let's use bit 4 to indicate communication of thin blocks," how about a more general one like "Let's use bit(s?) 4(-5?) as user-agent specific service bits so that if you customize your user-agent string, you can use

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Services bit for xthin blocks

Hi, > Does this functionality change peer selection? This bit will be used for selecting outgoing peers in Bitcoin XT. On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 8:06 PM, G. Andrew Stone via

[bitcoin-dev] BIP44 & BIP32 chain address look-ahead limits

I recently ran into an issue while importing a Mycelium HD wallet where it was not finding all of my funds - upon further investigation with Mycelium devs we realized that the wallet was following the BIP44 spec correctly, but BIP44 may have a flaw. The problem was a result of my creating 16

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Services bit for xthin blocks

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 8:06 PM, G. Andrew Stone via bitcoin-dev wrote: > The Bitcoin Unlimited client needs a services bit to indicate that the node > is capable of communicating thin blocks. We propose to use bit 4 as AFAIK > bit 3 is already earmarked for

[bitcoin-dev] Services bit for xthin blocks

The Bitcoin Unlimited client needs a services bit to indicate that the node is capable of communicating thin blocks. We propose to use bit 4 as AFAIK bit 3 is already earmarked for Segregated Witness. Andrew ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list