Re: [Bitcoin-development] Developer documentation on bitcoin.org

2014-05-12 Thread Wladimir
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 4:08 AM, Saïvann Carignan saiv...@gmail.com wrote: A new Developer Documentation section should be soon merged on bitcoin.org . Live Preview: http://bitcoindev.us.to/en/developer-documentation GitHub Pull Request: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/393

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Allow cross-site requests of payment requests

2014-05-12 Thread Mike Hearn
Would it be a terrible idea to amend BIP 70 to suggest implementors include a Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * response header for their payment request responses? I don't think this opens up any useful attack vectors. It sounds OK to me, although we should all sleep on it for a bit. The

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

2014-05-12 Thread Jan Møller
A Java implementation of what is called BIPSS in lack of an official number can be found here: https://github.com/mycelium-com/wallet/blob/master/public/bitlib/src/main/java/com/mrd/bitlib/crypto/BipSs.java (passing all test vectors) Which is based on a GF2^8 implementation here:

Re: [Bitcoin-development] A statistical consensus rule for reducing 0-conf double-spend risk

2014-05-12 Thread Tom Harding
Sorry to run on, a correction is needed. A much better approximation requires that the rule-following minority finds the next TWO blocks, so the cost is (total miner revenue of block)*(fraction of hashpower following the rule)^2 So the lower bound cost in this very pessimistic scenario is

Re: [Bitcoin-development] ECDH in the payment protocol

2014-05-12 Thread Peter Todd
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 08:38:22PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote: On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote: I don't think we're going to find that's practical unfortunately due to change. Every payment I make ties up txouts, so if we try to base the atomicity of

[Bitcoin-development] Prenumbered BIP naming

2014-05-12 Thread Gregory Maxwell
I've noticed some folks struggling to attach labels to their yet to be numbered BIPs. I'd recommend people call them draft-main author name-what it does like draft-maxwell-coinburning in the style of pre-WG IETF drafts.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Prenumbered BIP naming

2014-05-12 Thread Matt Whitlock
On Monday, 12 May 2014, at 9:53 am, Gregory Maxwell wrote: I've noticed some folks struggling to attach labels to their yet to be numbered BIPs. I'd recommend people call them draft-main author name-what it does like draft-maxwell-coinburning in the style of pre-WG IETF drafts. Why is

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Prenumbered BIP naming

2014-05-12 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.name wrote: Why is there such a high bar to getting a number assigned to a BIP anyway? BIP 1 seems to suggest that getting a BIP number assigned is no big deal, but the reality seems to betray that casual notion. Even proposals

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Allow cross-site requests of payment requests

2014-05-12 Thread Andy Alness
It sounds OK to me, although we should all sleep on it for a bit. The reason this header exists is exactly because mobile code fetching random web resources can result in surprising security holes. That's fair. From the server perspective, I'd argue that payment requests / payments already

Re: [Bitcoin-development] ECDH in the payment protocol

2014-05-12 Thread Chris Pacia
Just a thought. Using the payment protocol for stealth would mean we would likely have to return to backing up wallets all the time would it not? The nonces cannot be derived from your wallet seed and, since they aren't in the blockchain, would have to be stored in your wallet. I suppose they

[Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Fee Formula Proposal

2014-05-12 Thread Peter Grigor
This was originally submitted to the bitcoin github issue manager. I'm re-posting here. I propose the transaction fee should be calculated from a percentage of the input amount divided by the confirmations of the input multiplied by the number of inputs. By using a percentage of the input amount

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Fee Formula Proposal

2014-05-12 Thread Gmail
What about 0 confirmation inputs? Mightn't this make tiny spam transactions unsafely inexpensive? On May 12, 2014, at 20:21, Peter Grigor pe...@grigor.ws wrote: I propose the transaction fee should be calculated from a percentage of the input amount divided by the confirmations of the