A bunch of different people either have implemented or are implementing
BIP70 at the moment. Here's a bunch of things I've been telling people in
response to questions. At some point I'll submit a pull req with this stuff
in but for now it's just an email.
*Error handling during signature
On 04/30/2014 03:02 AM, Wladimir wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Kristov Atlas
aut...@anonymousbitcoinbook.com wrote:
Hey Wladimir,
Thanks for building this binary. The initial problem with Qt was
resolved, and I was able to load the GUI that chooses my datadir. After
choosing the
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Kristov Atlas
aut...@anonymousbitcoinbook.com wrote:
Nice work! I can confirm that this dev binary runs smoothly in the latest
Thanks for testing!
version of Tails, v1.0. Screenshot proof here [1]. When this is incorporated
into the next release of Bitcoin
vendor hat: on
Related:
http://blog.bitpay.com/2014/05/02/bitpay-bitcoin-and-where-to-put-that-decimal-point.html
--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
At the moment BIP70 specifically requires that a request be rejected
if validation fails, so that should be fixed that sooner rather than
later:
The recipient must verify the certificate chain according to
[RFC5280] and reject the PaymentRequest if any validation failure
occurs.
Aaron
There's
*Extended validation certs*
When a business is accepting payment, showing the name of the business is
usually better than showing just the domain name, for a few reasons:
1. Unless your domain name *is* your business name like blockchain.info,
it looks better and gives more info.
I fully support this (it's what I suggested over a year ago), but what it
comes down to is BitPay, Coinbase, Blockchain and Bitstamp getting
together, agreeing what they're going to use, and doing a little joint
customer education campaign around it. If there's community momentum around
bits,
It will also be important to chose the currency symbol for bits at the
same time. Lowercase stroke b I think is the obvious choice.
Unicode U+0180
Aaron
On Friday, May 2, 2014, Alan Reiner etothe...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been a strong supporter of the 1e-6 unit switch since the beginning
and
[resend - apologies if duplicate]
Microbitcoin is a good-sized unit, workable for everyday transaction
values, with room-to-grow, and a nice relationship to satoshis as 'cents'.
But bits has problems as a unit name.
Bits will be especially problematic whenever people try to graduate
from
I live in Argentina. Here, 1BTC is around half of a monthly average
wage (net), so, as you
can imagine, the value of 1 BTC is *very* inconvenient for everyday
transactions.
Also it presents an important entry barrier for new adopters: It would be
easier to accept buying thousands of bits than
On Saturday, May 03, 2014 12:54:37 AM Ben Davenport wrote:
My only addition is that I think we should all stop trying to attach SI
prefixes to the currency unit. Name me another world currency that uses SI
prefixes. No one quotes amounts as 63 k$ or 3 M$. The accepted standard at
least in the
Luke,
My point is that you never apply the prefixes to the currency unit itself.
We don't spend kilodollars or megadollars.
Ben
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Luke Dashjr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
On Saturday, May 03, 2014 12:54:37 AM Ben Davenport wrote:
My only addition is that I think we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Huh? Your examples demonstrate the *opposite* of your point. 'k' and
'M' *are*
the SI prefixes. People *do* use 63k USD, $63k, and $3M.
Excellent point.
Also, I frequently hear statements referring to mili-bitcoins, mBTC, pronounced
as
Think your example is not quite valid ...
People say or write $88M or $45k I.e. use SI prefix as a suffix, else it would
be more, not less, clear on what amount is being referred to.
For me, bits are easy to say and one million as a factor is simple to
understand.
M-bits, kilobits, millibits,
Excellent move Jeff.
Best would now be to establish XBT as the ISO code for bits.
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 02.05.2014, at 21:17, Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com wrote:
vendor hat: on
Related:
I have to agree with Mike. Human language is surprisingly tolerant of
overloading and inference from context. Neurotypical people have no
problem with it and perceive a software engineer's aversion to it as
being pedantic and strange. Note that bits was a term for a unit of
money long before the
16 matches
Mail list logo
