[Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Core 0.9rc1 release schedule

2014-01-16 Thread Wladimir
Hello all, It has been way to long since last major release. Many improvements and new features have been added to master since, so we'd like to do a 0.9rc1 release soon. The current aim is next month, February 2014. Of course there are still some open issues that need to be resolved before

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Stealth Addresses

2014-01-16 Thread Wladimir
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Gary Rowe g.r...@froot.co.uk wrote: I like reusable address. Simple and clear, I like it too. I see the term is routing is used in finance in the USA, but as a Dutch person I associate routing address with network routing, not with banking. It's non-trivial to

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Stealth Addresses

2014-01-16 Thread Drak
On 16 January 2014 00:05, Jeremy Spilman jer...@taplink.co wrote: Might I propose reusable address. I think that describes it best to any non-programmer, and even more so encourages wallets to present options as 'one time use' vs 'reusable'. The problem is all addresses are reusable and to

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Stealth Addresses

2014-01-16 Thread Mike Hearn
I think we have a winner in reusable address. Yes an existing address can be reused and will superficially appear to work, it just won't work well. Calling them reusable addresses helps reinforce the idea in peoples mind that the other kind shouldn't be reused. On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:14 AM,

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Tor / SPV

2014-01-16 Thread Mike Hearn
Yes correct, using hidden services just as a kind of more complicated, out of process/sandboxable SSL. would the overall transactions/second the Bitcoin network could handle go down? If all nodes talked to each other all the time over Tor, probably yes because Bitcoin is quite sensitive to

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Core 0.9rc1 release schedule

2014-01-16 Thread Warren Togami Jr.
Just a small note of caution for those joining in testing. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3529 Currently the master branch has this issue where leveldb renames all of .sst files to .ldb. This makes running the 0.8.x version of Bitcoin think the index is corrupt. Until a fix is

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Core 0.9rc1 release schedule

2014-01-16 Thread Luke-Jr
On Thursday, January 16, 2014 9:09:52 AM Wladimir wrote: Hello all, It has been way to long since last major release. Many improvements and new features have been added to master since, so we'd like to do a 0.9rc1 release soon. The current aim is next month, February 2014. Of course

Re: [Bitcoin-development] unlinakble static address? spv-privacy (Re: Stealth Addresses)

2014-01-16 Thread Troy Benjegerdes
But I think it's great people can choose how to trade privacy for computation/bandwidth however they want, and services can compete to offer monitoring for 0+ bit prefixes. Its not a decision with user localised effect. If most users use it with parameters giving high elimination

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Stealth Addresses

2014-01-16 Thread Peter Todd
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 04:05:27PM -0800, Jeremy Spilman wrote: Might I propose reusable address. I think that describes it best to any non-programmer, and even more so encourages wallets to present options as 'one time use' vs 'reusable'. It definitely packs a marketing punch which could

[Bitcoin-development] Reusable addresses

2014-01-16 Thread Byte Coin
I'm very pleased that my old idea is getting some traction and that I have been appropriately credited! I also think the term reusable addresses is preferable to anything to do with stealth for the reasons mentioned. You should note that the privacy guarantees they provide are not that strong

[Bitcoin-development] Suggestion: allow receivers to pay optional fee for transactions without fees

2014-01-16 Thread Dâniel Fraga
Someone sent me a very small donation (0.00121 BTC) without paying fees. I don't know who sent it and I know this type of transaction are usually rejected by miners. Take a look at it below: https://imageshack.com/i/ngv5g8j Even with the a low probability of confirmation, I was

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Suggestion: allow receivers to pay optional fee for transactions without fees

2014-01-16 Thread Ben Davenport
You can create a transaction which spends the output to yourself, attaching a fee to that transaction. In order for miners to grab the transaction fee on that transaction, they would have to also mine the original transaction. Likely, you'd have to do this by hand, but software could be written to

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Suggestion: allow receivers to pay optional fee for transactions without fees

2014-01-16 Thread Dâniel Fraga
This is good news! Thank you very much Ben for the answer. On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:52:39 -0800 Ben Davenport bendavenp...@gmail.com wrote: You can create a transaction which spends the output to yourself, attaching a fee to that transaction. In order for miners to grab the transaction

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Suggestion: allow receivers to pay optional fee for transactions without fees

2014-01-16 Thread Christophe Biocca
To clarify, there are proposals to make miners recognize this situation and account for it, only eligius is running it at the moment IIRC: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/8390/are-there-any-pools-or-large-miners-running-child-pays-for-parent-patch Right now if you were to try it likely

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Stealth Addresses

2014-01-16 Thread Johnathan Corgan
On 01/16/2014 01:28 PM, Peter Todd wrote: I'm very against the name reusable addresses and strongly belive we should stick with the name stealth addresses. I agree wholeheartedly against using reusable address. I personally am fine with stealth address, but can see where there might be a

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Stealth Addresses

2014-01-16 Thread Jeremy Spilman
I hear you, and I really don't care that much what it's called, as much as, does it work and how! I might even try to enter in a reusable address in blockchain.info, which won't work, and I'll just figure must be some new unsupported thing and move on with my life. Regardless of what it's

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Suggestion: allow receivers to pay optional fee for transactions without fees

2014-01-16 Thread Luke-Jr
On Friday, January 17, 2014 2:39:31 AM Christophe Biocca wrote: To clarify, there are proposals to make miners recognize this situation and account for it, only eligius is running it at the moment IIRC: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/8390/are-there-any-pools-or-larg

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Stealth Addresses

2014-01-16 Thread Drak
Peter I agree with you about reusable addresses, but aren't we also trying to get away from the word address entirely? How about calling it a payment key or reusable payment key instead? using stealth is just asking for bad press imo. On 16 January 2014 21:28, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org