Re: [Bitcoin-development] JSON-RPC is BIP territory or not?

2012-03-03 Thread Stefan Thomas
Since several independent clients (I know at least libcoin https://github.com/ceptacle/libcoin/blob/master/src/coinHTTP/RequestHandler.cpp and BitcoinJS https://github.com/bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-server/tree/master/lib/rpc) aim to implement JSON-RPC APIs which are either a superset of the original

Re: [Bitcoin-development] getmemorypool BIP process

2012-03-03 Thread Luke-Jr
On Saturday, March 03, 2012 9:23:08 AM Stefan Thomas wrote: From what I understand the BIP uses a polling model, e.g. a miner would use getmemorypool to request new work from a pool in intervals. Would it make sense to specify a version of the API supporting long polling? You mean explicitly

Re: [Bitcoin-development] getmemorypool BIP process

2012-03-03 Thread Luke-Jr
On Saturday, March 03, 2012 10:05:58 AM Gavin Andresen wrote: HTTP and JSON-RPC are a client-server model; there is no way for the server to make calls to the client. It's not practical to expect clients to run their own JSON-RPC server - many cannot listen on WAN ports at all. You're

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Duplicate transactions vulnerability

2012-03-03 Thread Pieter Wuille
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 17:48, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, I've written about it in BIP30[2]. There is a patch for the reference client, which has been tested and verified to make the attack impossible. The change is backward compatible in the same way BIP16 is:

Re: [Bitcoin-development] getmemorypool BIP process

2012-03-03 Thread Michael Grønager
HTTP and JSON-RPC are a client-server model; there is no way for the server to make calls to the client. It's not practical to expect clients to run their own JSON-RPC server - many cannot listen on WAN ports at all. Well, I think what Stefan had in mind was http keep-alive combined with

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Proposal for a new opcode

2012-03-03 Thread Gavin Andresen
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Watson Ladd w...@uchicago.edu wrote: Dear all, I am proposing a new opcode for the purposes of anonymous transactions. That's very exciting! I'm eager to read the paper for all of the details, and working out what else would need to be done besides a new opcode

Re: [Bitcoin-development] getmemorypool BIP process

2012-03-03 Thread Stefan Thomas
I've updated the draft to include long polling, and remove some assumptions of using HTTP for transport. Looks good to me. On 3/3/2012 4:44 PM, Luke-Jr wrote: On Saturday, March 03, 2012 10:05:58 AM Gavin Andresen wrote: HTTP and JSON-RPC are a client-server model; there is no way for the

Re: [Bitcoin-development] getmemorypool BIP process

2012-03-03 Thread Stefan Thomas
Btw - question to Stefan as the JavaScript guru - what do you consider the standard/defacto-standard/right/best-practice way of doing S-C json-rpc, what (javascript) library do you use for this? As for an explicitly standard way, there is none. The JSON-RPC 1.0 spec

Re: [Bitcoin-development] getmemorypool BIP process

2012-03-03 Thread Geir Harald Hansen
On 28.02.2012 23:06, Luke-Jr wrote: Please review and comment/critique: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_DRAFT:_getmemorypool Looking forward to implementing this in my pool backend and miner. A few comments: transactions add or remove transactions (both of the above; default if

Re: [Bitcoin-development] getmemorypool BIP process

2012-03-03 Thread Luke-Jr
On Saturday, March 03, 2012 6:51:34 PM Geir Harald Hansen wrote: Long polling as currently implemented in pools has a race condition. Does the miner reconnect first or does another block change happen first? Double block changes are common with merged mining and I'm doing all sorts of tricks