Re: [Bitcoin-development] Going to tag 0.9.2 final

2014-06-14 Thread Un Ix
Was joking, but isn't the translation process back-ended with runtime tests to ensure that any stray chars etc cause the application to fail? On 14/06/2014, at 1:49 pm, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.name wrote: On Saturday, 14 June 2014, at 1:42 pm, Un Ix wrote: How about a prize for

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Going to tag 0.9.2 final

2014-06-14 Thread Wladimir
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Un Ix slashdevn...@hotmail.com wrote: Was joking, but isn't the translation process back-ended with runtime tests to ensure that any stray chars etc cause the application to fail? There is some postprocessing done in the script that fetches translation files

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Going to tag 0.9.2 final

2014-06-14 Thread Wladimir
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Un Ix slashdevn...@hotmail.com wrote: How about a prize for anyone who can spot any malicious strings within next hour? ;-) Hah, if there was to be a prize I'd rather have people looking out for icebergs than for wrongly arranged deck chairs :-) Wladimir

[Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-14 Thread Lawrence Nahum
Hello, I had the pleasure to meet some of you in Amsterdam and/or to speak on #bitcoin-dev but this is actually my first message to the mailing list - I feel a bit clumsy so apologies in advance if I make any mistake :) Quick introduction/background: my name is Lawrence Nahum and I'm the founder

Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension

2014-06-14 Thread Andreas Schildbach
Just a quick comment: The supports_instant field seems redundant to me. First, as per your spec, you can derive it from trusted_instant_providers. And second, why do you need it at all? Protobuf is designed so it will simply ignore fields you don't know. So you can just send the instant_* fields