At the developer round-table it was asked if the payment protocol would
alt-chains, and Gavin noted that it has a UTF-8 encoded string
identifying the network (main or test). As someone with two
proposals in the works which also require chain/coin identification (one
for merged mining, one for
Personally, I agree, but a different decision has been made by the main
devs.
The issue is this: consider two transactions in the unconfirmed pool. One
transaction has 2BTC input, 1.5BTC to one address (the payment), .4995 to
another address (change) and .0005 standard fee. Another transaction
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Robert Backhaus rob...@robbak.com wrote:
So the decision has been made to make 0-conf double spends trivial, so no
one will ever trust 0-confs. If a later transaction appears with a larger
fee, it will be considered to be the valid one, and the first one
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Mark Friedenbach m...@monetize.io wrote:
So as to remain reasonably compliant with RFC 4122, I recommend that we
use Version 4 (random) UUIDs, with the random bits extracted from the
double-SHA256 hash of the genesis block of the chain. (For colored
coins, the
Bitcoinj already has such chain id's and we use standard Java style reverse
DNS names: org.bitcoin.main, etc. If we want a more global naming system
that seems like a good compromise between uniqueness and readability.
On 20 May 2013 19:45, Jeff Garzik jgar...@exmulti.com wrote:
On Mon, May 20,
That's good - what I had taken away from the replace-by-fee discussions was
that it was finally decided.
My opinion is that we should be doing what we can to make 0-confs as
reliable as possible - which will always be 'not very', but a solid system
to notify on attempted double-spends is a good
A part of my reason for sending this email was a quick discussion I had
with Gavin at the BitCoin conference. I was under the strong impression
that double spend notification was something he approved of and was
considering implementing himself.
In the case of a double spend, If the
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Robert Backhaus rob...@robbak.com wrote:
So the decision has been made to make 0-conf double spends trivial, so no
one will ever trust 0-confs. If a later transaction appears with a
8 matches
Mail list logo
