On 27 Apr 2015, at 21:21, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
Even right now there are edge cases without
good solutions, like how in a multisig environment any of the key
holders can mutate transactions.
Can't we add requirement for RFC6979 signatures to mitigate this? Of course,
/2015 04:58 PM, Oleg Andreev wrote:
Hi,
I wonder if there is a standard way to put Payment Request data into
bitcoin: URI or directly into QR code. The goal is to allow device to
generate a multi-output payment request on its own, without relying on the
server and x509 certificates. When
Base43 is the same as any BaseX standard, but using a different alphabet
(43 characters). It's meant to be used for efficiently storing binary
data into QR codes. The alphabet is picked to match the 'Alphanumeric'
input mode of QR codes as closely as possible, but at the same time be
allowed
On 12 Feb 2015, at 13:49, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
If unconfirmed payments become flaky enough that people stop using them, then
a portion of the Bitcoin community will find workarounds like trusted third
parties, trusted hardware, whatever and will just struggle one. Other people
I think that is a misdirection on your part. The point of replace-by-fee is
to make 0-confirms reliably unreliable. Currently people can get away with
0-confirms but it's only because most people arent actively double spending,
and when they do it is for higher value targets. Double spend
Let's say you're visiting an international webshop. But they don't ship to
your country. Wouldn't you want to know that before your start filling the
cart? With this, your wallet / browser extension could tell you right away
that you can't shop there. No time wasted!
Why my wallet has to
6 matches
Mail list logo
