On Sunday, January 29, 2012 9:31:02 PM Pieter Wuille wrote:
> The implementation is available in pull request 787
> (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/787), but there is certainly
> need for testing, and room for improvements. Test reports, comments,
> constructive criticism, suggestions and
Hello all,
wanting to move to IPv6 support in the Satoshi bitcoin client
somewhere in the future, the way IP addresses were managed is not
really possible anymore. Right now, basically all addresses ever seen
are kept - both on-disk and in-memory, and sorted on last-seen time
with some randomizati
Matt Corallo posted a modification of BIP 20 in an earlier email and I asked
him if he wanted to become the champion of that BIP he submitted.
It is a modification of BIP 20 sans the alternative non-decimal number stuff.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0021
Right now, I will ask the GUI client
On Sunday, January 29, 2012 6:02:30 PM Matt Corallo wrote:
> I have to say, I agree with Luke here, this was Finalized a long time
> ago. The version that was agreed on can be seen at
> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0021
No, that never had a consensus.
> Also see https://bitcointalk.org/index.p
I have to say, I agree with Luke here, this was Finalized a long time
ago. The version that was agreed on can be seen at
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0021
Also see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6205.0 and Luke's three
biased polls at
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6206.0
htt
First and foremost, I consider this thread an utter waste of time. These
matters were "finished" over a year ago, and there is no need to dig them up
again just because there are numbers for BIPs now. I don't intend to continue
this topic any further than necessary, since my time (and everyone e
Hi all,
Luke Dashjr is telling me that BIP 20 was accepted as Final a year ago (before
the BIP process existed).
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Improvement_Proposals
I respectfully disagree. I find it nonsensical to have a BIP to have been
accepted before the BIP process existed. My feeli
On 2012-01-23 20:00:59 -0600, Alberto Torres said:
> This proposal describes how to add a hash-tree based check in the
> blockchain that allows to verify if a transaction is unspent without
> downloading and checking all the blockchain. The idea is not new, but
> at the time of this writing there i
On Sunday, January 29, 2012 9:30:10 AM Gavin Andresen wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Amir Taaki wrote:
> > (oops sorry greg- replied to you by mistake)
> >
> > That address he gives is 77 characters/bytes (same thing). What I'm
> > asking is how can it be so small.
>
> That's an alter
I added the ability to do controlled generation of blocks to gavin's fuzzer
https://github.com/genjix/bitcoin/tree/fuzzer
bitcoind -daemon
bitcoind
setfuzzpreviousblock 0019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f
bitcoind setgenerate true
It will start hashing the block wi
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Amir Taaki wrote:
> (oops sorry greg- replied to you by mistake)
>
> That address he gives is 77 characters/bytes (same thing). What I'm asking
> is how can it be so small.
That's an alternative design for multisig addresses that would put a byte
giving the type
(oops sorry greg- replied to you by mistake)
That address he gives is 77 characters/bytes (same thing). What I'm asking is
how can it be so small. I know that it's encoding a script, but then I started
trying to imagine what kind of script and to me it seems that 2 public keys are
too large for
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Alan Reiner wrote:
[snip]
> But gmaxwell has expressed some compelling reasons why plain multi-sig
> might be abused, which maybe suggests we don't want it ever considered
> standard...? I guess I'm not really promoting one thing or another, but
Be careful not t
13 matches
Mail list logo
