Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.9.3 release

2014-09-28 Thread Luke Dashjr
On Sunday, September 28, 2014 5:15:53 AM Peter Todd wrote: On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 07:55:44PM -0700, Tom Harding wrote: On 9/25/2014 7:37 PM, Aaron Voisine wrote: Of course you wouldn't want nodes to propagate alerts without independently verifying them How would a node independently

[Bitcoin-development] New opcodes and transaction version numbers (was 'relax the IsStandard rules for P2SH transactions')

2014-09-28 Thread Peter Todd
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 09:54:31AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote: RE: soft-forks bumping version numbers: Yes, we have consensus that is the way we will do it. I should probably turn https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/2355445 into an informational BIP. That gist is mistaken. To see the

Re: [Bitcoin-development] New opcodes and transaction version numbers (was 'relax the IsStandard rules for P2SH transactions')

2014-09-28 Thread Alan Reiner
On 09/28/2014 10:35 PM, Peter Todd wrote: This can be solved by upgrading the address format at the same time to let senders know they must send the funds in a transaction with an increased version number, but obviously needing new addresses for every new opcode defeats the purpose of P2SH.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] New opcodes and transaction version numbers (was 'relax the IsStandard rules for P2SH transactions')

2014-09-28 Thread Peter Todd
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:30:11AM -0400, Alan Reiner wrote: On 09/28/2014 10:35 PM, Peter Todd wrote: This can be solved by upgrading the address format at the same time to let senders know they must send the funds in a transaction with an increased version number, but obviously needing