Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP draft - Auxiliary Header Format

Some initial comments... Tying in the protocol changes is really confusing and the fact that they seem to be required out the gates would seemingly make this much harder to deploy. Is there a need to do that? Why can't the p2p part be entirely separate from the comitted data? On Mon, Nov 10, 20

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP draft - Auxiliary Header Format

I made some changes to the draft. The merkleblock now has the auxiliary header information too. There is a tradeoff between overhead and delayed transactions. Is 12.5% transactions being delayed to the next block unacceptable? Would adding padding transactions be an improvement? Creating the "

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Running a full node

Dear all, +1 ! Thanks to those who sent me some details and links. My node is up and running on 5.56.40.1:8333 Techno : Linux HA + dual homed Internet transit. It should be stable as from now. Best regards -- Francis Le 06/11/2014 11:53, Francis GASCHET a écrit : > Dear all, > > I'm currently