Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bug with handing of OP_RETURN?

2014-05-05 Thread Jeff Garzik
Correct, though that was somewhat unintentional. The pushed-data size is limited to = 40 bytes, and as non-pushdata opcodes carry zero pushed data, they are accepted. On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Sergio Lerner sergioler...@certimix.com wrote: El 03/05/2014 03:55 p.m., Mark Friedenbach

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Presenting a BIP for Shamir's Secret Sharing of Bitcoin private keys

2014-05-05 Thread Nikita Schmidt
A fork of Matt's proposal converted to GF(2^8) is here: https://github.com/cetuscetus/btctool/blob/bip/bip-.mediawiki Other changes include: - only six application/version bytes are allocated, which is the minimum to ensure that the encoded form starts with S in all cases; - encoded prefixes

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block collision resolution using the DECOR protocol and Bonneau's Kickbacks problem

2014-05-05 Thread Sergio Lerner
On 02/05/2014 10:56 a.m., Joseph Bonneau wrote: This is an interesting idea Sergio. I have two concerns: You mention 50% of the block reward going to the uncle block. Does this mean the parent gets 1, and the uncle 0.5, or both get 0.5? In the first interpretation (which I assumed was the

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block collision resolution using the DECOR protocol and Bonneau's Kickbacks problem

2014-05-05 Thread Ittay
As far as I understand, the incentives Sergio suggests would work. So we can assume that the pruned uncle blocks would still win their creators at least partial revenue. As for selfish mining - I'm not sure how GHOST affects it. I don't think it does. The selfish miners just care about heaviest

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bits: Unit of account

2014-05-05 Thread Gordon Mohr
On 5/2/14, 10:41 PM, Aaron Voisine wrote: 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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70 proposed changes

2014-05-05 Thread Odinn Cyberguerrilla
I am curious if the Android developer who had been working on two factor authentication and bitcoin had worked toward an open issue or pull request? I had been looking around for some sign that this had occurred but hadn't found it, I am interested to know what is the progress in this area (in a

[Bitcoin-development] Bug in key.cpp

2014-05-05 Thread Srintuar
I think i see a bug: line 273 of key.cpp if (rec0 || rec=3) return false; Afaict, 3 is a perfectly valid value, meaning 25% of sig- key recoveries would fail erroneously... -- Is your legacy SCM

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bug in key.cpp

2014-05-05 Thread odinn . cyberguerrilla
You are right there is a bug in there. But the value is not 25% I think. Tinker some more. :-) I think i see a bug: line 273 of key.cpp if (rec0 || rec=3) return false; Afaict, 3 is a perfectly valid value, meaning 25% of sig- key recoveries would fail