This breaks existing invariants and would make the coins potentially less
fungible because they wouldn't be reorg safe.
I'm not sure coins are ever reorg safe. All it takes is a double spend in
the history of your coins for them to become invalid after a reorg. Because
of that, there are already
in the blockchain if they used OP_RETURN).
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Btc Drak btcd...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Flavien Charlon
flavien.char...@coinprism.com wrote:
My main concern with OP_RETURN is that it seems to encourage people to
use the blockchain as a convenient
My main concern with OP_RETURN is that it seems to encourage people to
use the blockchain as a convenient transport channel
The number one user of the blockchain as a storage and transport mechanism
is Counterparty, and limiting OP_RETURN to 40 bytes didn't prevent them
from doing so. In fact
Hi,
The data that can be embedded as part of an OP_RETURN output is currently
limited to 40 bytes. It was initially supposed to be 80 bytes, but got
reduced to 40 before the 0.9 release to err on the side of caution.
After 9 months, it seems OP_RETURN did not lead to a blockchain
catastrophe, so
Also, I was wondering if there were nightly builds I could try this from?
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Flavien Charlon
flavien.char...@coinprism.com wrote:
Hi,
What is the status of watch-only addresses in Bitcoin Core? Is it merged
in master and usable? Is there documentation on how
Hi,
What is the status of watch-only addresses in Bitcoin Core? Is it merged in
master and usable? Is there documentation on how to add a watch-only
address through RPC.
Also, I believe that is going towards the 0.10 release, is there a
rough ETA for a release candidate?
Thanks
Flavien
Very good, I like the proposal.
A question I have: can it be used to do the opposite, i.e. build a script
that can only be spent up until block X?
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 2:09 AM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 1 October 2014
It would make more sense to introduce a new script opcode that pushes the
current block height onto the operand stack. Then you could implement
arbitrary logic about which blocks the transaction can be valid in. This
would require that the client revalidate all transactions in its mempool
Thanks, that makes sense, just wanted to make sure this what the problem
was.
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Flavien Charlon
flavien.char...@coinprism.com wrote:
Outputs are above dust, inputs are not spent. OP_RETURN
Can someone enlighten me on why the following transaction is being rejected
by Bitcoind 0.9.1 with error code -22 on Mainnet.
I have updated the
spechttps://github.com/Flavien/colored-coins-protocol/blob/master/specification.mediawiki
.
This is an interesting approach, but OP_RETURN size limitations can be a
significant problem for some kinds of applications.
This is correct, the number of colored outputs you can have
Thanks for the valuable feedback. I see there is a strong concern with
requiring a large BTC capital for issuing coloring coins, so I am now in
the process of modifying the specification to address that. I will post an
update when this is finished.
By the way, padding doesn't solve the issue
the shares. It's an investment, not an expense, so I think it is
acceptable.
Best,
Flavien
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Mark Friedenbach m...@monetize.io wrote:
On 04/06/2014 01:59 PM, Flavien Charlon wrote:
Do you think this is the right approach?
No, I'm afraid it has significant
certificate is printed.
This is why I think the importance of padding with colored coins is
overblown.
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Jorge Timón jti...@monetize.io wrote:
On 4/7/14, Flavien Charlon flavien.char...@coinprism.com wrote:
Also those 54 BTC (actually 5.4 BTC if the dust is now 540
.
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Jorge Timón jti...@monetize.io wrote:
On 4/7/14, Flavien Charlon flavien.char...@coinprism.com wrote:
Ok, I guess I'm not using the proper terminology. It would be listed on
the
Asset section of the company's balance sheet, is what I meant.
No, it's
15 matches
Mail list logo
