On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Luke Dashjr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
On Sunday, October 26, 2014 7:57:12 AM Wladimir wrote:
Let me know if there is anything else you think is ready (and not too
risky) to be in 0.10.
At the very least, we need:
#5106 Bugfix: submitblock: Use a temporary
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Melvin Carvalho
melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote:
Firstly, apologies in coming in late to the conversation. As I am also
working on a REST API for electronic coins. Some questions:
1. Is there a BIP, or some other doc (e.g. gist), outlining the REST output
On 27 October 2014 08:49, Wladimir laa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Melvin Carvalho
melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote:
Firstly, apologies in coming in late to the conversation. As I am also
working on a REST API for electronic coins. Some questions:
1. Is there
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Melvin Carvalho
melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you think it would a reasonable idea to put down some thoughts and
proposals in a BIP?
It would certainly be nice to start with a document that reflects the
new REST interface. That makes a good starting point
I've been playing around with the code for estimating fees and found a few
issues with the existing code. I think this will address several
observations that the estimates returned by the existing code appear to be
too high. For instance see @cozz in Issue 4866
Greetings Bitcoin Dev,
This is a proposal to improve the ability of bitcoin users to rely on
unconfirmed transactions. It can be adopted incrementally, with no hard
or soft fork required.
https://github.com/dgenr8/out-there/blob/master/ds-dep-win.md
Your thoughtful feedback would be very
Matt,
You're right, thanks. Without double-spend relay, miner won't know that
some txes conflict with anything. I'll add that first-double-spends are
relayed per #4570.
Miner has to be very careful including a double-spend in his block -- he
hopes:
- that based on his measured time
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:26 AM, Tom Harding t...@thinlink.com wrote:
Matt,
You're right, thanks. Without double-spend relay, miner won't know that
some txes conflict with anything.
Even with that, the miner cannot tell, his only safe option is to
include no transactions at all.
Consider a
8 matches
Mail list logo
