On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com wrote:
I wrote a patch for string-based name extensions, circa 2011-2012. I
agree that is preferable to unreadable bits, for reasons you cite.
However, it was noted that extensions (or UUIDs etc.) would not be
propagated around
Please, let's talk about other anti-double spend things on a separate
thread.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Isidor Zeuner cryptocurrenc...@quidecco.de
wrote:
What prevents the following steps from happening:
I linked to Satoshi's post on this earlier, he explains why it works there,
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 5:23 AM, Wladimir laa...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyhow -- back to the original proposal. I'm fine with setting aside
part of the service bit space for experiments.
ACK
--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
Andreas Schildbach andreas at schildbach.de writes:
What is the use of the Transactions message? Note the Payment message
already contains a transactions field that could be signed. Can you
briefly describe the whole flow of messages on an example, including the
BIP70 messages?
Updated the
I think that's true if you assume that the instant provider list is based
on a by hand created list of accepted instant providers. That's how VISA
works now and that's why I was asking for an approach where the
trusted_instant_providers list is scalable because that seems very
dangerous.
Den 17 jun 2014 17:59 skrev Isidor Zeuner cryptocurrenc...@quidecco.de:
quote:
Mike Hearn, why don't we just have all nodes report attempted double
spends
through the node network. No need to involve the miners at all really,
or
do your suggestion but also report the double spend attempt.
quote:
[...]
On 4/24/14, Chris Pacia ctpa...@gmail.com wrote:
It would work but it's an ugly hack IMO. What do people do if they don't
have extra to pay when making a purchase? I have 200 mbtc and want to buy a
200 mbtc phone but I can't because I need 400 mbtc. Sucks for me.
I would
7 matches
Mail list logo
