Yeah, I tried implementing it based on the document there and the code that is
available in sipa's repo on GitHub but it's not enough. I'm waiting until there
is an implementation of this concept before moving on it.
From: Michael Gronager
cool paper:
http://phys.org/news/2013-01-algorithm-message-dissemination-decentralized-networks.html#jCp
--
Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS,
MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much
Can this be amended? I think it makes much more sense to allow people to input
labels not numbers at this level.
General category names for different accounts is much more human than numbers,
and you can still use incrementing numbers if you prefer.
field so we follow step 2.2.1
From: Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com
To: Amir Taaki zgen...@yahoo.com
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Monday, December 3, 2012 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin
My thoughts:
The extension is simple. It's only really useful for the use-cases listed if
the majority of nodes implement it. As I view the proposal, it is perfectly
simple and uncomplicated. If it's implemented, then I suggest to just increment
version and make it part of the protocol.
On
MSG_MEMTX solves the issue of not knowing whether a given inv is in response to
a mempool command or not.
I don't buy the argument that always sending a response inv makes things
easier because code should always be able to handle misbehaviour from the
remote node (ommiting the inv). However I
Hi,
luke-jr wants me to split this BIP into 3 separate BIPs because he says that
other devs felt it was too unfocused and covered too many topics. However this
discussion took place on IRC, and I never saw any of it to ascertain what
happened (BIP 1 says drafts should be evaluated on the
Hi!
Is this a valid script?
[1 0 1, WITHIN NOT]
The first value (1) is tested to make sure it is between the lower (0) and
upper (1) value. This evaluates to true, placing on the stack a single byte of
[01]. NOT then inverses this to a 0 byte false value of [].
What am I missing here?
-bound-inclusive, but upper bound exclusive, so 1 0 1 WITHIN
is false.
bool fValue = (bn2 = bn1 bn1 bn3);
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/script.cpp#L854
On 7/29/2012 6:31 PM, Amir Taaki wrote:
Hi!
Is this a valid script?
[1 0 1, WITHIN NOT]
The first value (1
Meh, probably harmless, but...
As best I can tell, OP_RESERVED does absolutely nothing (a NOP).
CScript::IsPushOnly(...) counts this as a push operation.
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will
Hey,
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/46
I tried to keep it professional, and non spammy.
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat
Video from the event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ2rb4pHH1g
The Hackathon is over, thanks for all the participants and sponsors! I
had loads of fun, and there were lots of great ideas flying around!
Thanks especially to:
- IN-Berlin, for providing the space to hold the hackathon!
-
.
- Original Message -
From: Andreas Petersson andr...@petersson.at
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] bitcoin.org - remove hackathon
Am 17.07.2012 11:17, schrieb Amir Taaki:
Like I really do not wish to sell
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/electrum-discuss
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can
Hey,
I just saw this added to the clients page. One of the conditions we set for
that page was that all the clients must have the entire sourcecode available
for review, and users should be able to run it from the sourcecode. Is the
sourcecode for this client available for review? I couldn't
Quoting Amir Taaki zgen...@yahoo.com:
Hey,
I just saw this added to the clients page. One of the conditions we
set for that page was that all the clients must have the entire
sourcecode available for review, and users should be able to run it
from the sourcecode. Is the sourcecode
. The argument that the other clients were not up to
scratch held maybe a few months ago, but not now.
- Original Message -
From: Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com
To: Amir Taaki zgen...@yahoo.com
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent
, jgarzik, and
the long-term stated goal of bitcoin.org as a neutral resource for the
community.
- Original Message -
From: Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com
To: Amir Taaki zgen...@yahoo.com
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent
with light and blue colors).
Making them search the entire page is inefficient and will just get
worse once there are many clients on the page (and I think that's the goal).
On 09.07.2012 17:54, Amir Taaki wrote:
Took me a while, but finally got it working.
Entries on the clients page are randomly
It would be nice if Bitcoin was engineered this way from the start. The amount
of workarounds, special cases and code bloat to deal with the fact that txs are
non-unique was a massive headache for me.
From: Mark Friedenbach m...@monetize.io
To: Jeff Garzik
Why though? The bottleneck is not network traffic but disk space
usage/blockchain validation time.
- Original Message -
From: Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net
To: Jeff Garzik jgar...@exmulti.com
Cc: Bitcoin Development bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012
transactions before being accepted?
- Original Message -
From: Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com
To: Amir Taaki zgen...@yahoo.com
Cc:
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Near-term scalability
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Amir Taaki zgen...@yahoo.com
Introspection/command discovery is nice, but I would prefer it to be
immediately done in the first version exchange so no assumptions as to how a
network is operating need to be made.
I like the idea of a flat list of commands. It might make sense to have
meta-commands that alias to groups of
Did anyone try sending them an email asking them to stop or offering help to
fix their site? What did they say? I'm sure they would try to be accomodating.
- Original Message -
From: Jonathan Warren jonat...@bitcoinstats.org
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc:
Sent:
That's a cool idea. Very meta.
From: Peter Vessenes pe...@coinlab.com
To: Stefan Thomas m...@justmoon.de
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Punishing empty blocks?
One of the
filter to make that part more
efficient (although it's questionable if pushing this server side would be a
good idea as it would now need to track an additional client state).
From: Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net
To: Amir Taaki zgen...@yahoo.com
Cc: bitcoin-development
1) This is cool and useful (but see 3)
2) This is significantly less secure than validating an entire blockchain;
it's certainly worth working out some use cases here in more detail than just
a sample conversation. More on this below
3) What about discovery? Will a client now have the
c-base is holding a day on p2p technologies on the 11th. From 20:00 will be the
section on Bitcoin.
If you want to do a talk, then email me (gen...@riseup.net) and I’ll add you to
the schedule.
--
Live Security Virtual
This is like the most annoying thing about email. Often with group emails,
we'll be having a conversation then someone will click reply instead of group
reply and the convo will go on for a while. Eventually I'll realise the persons
are missing and add them back in.
On Yahoo mail (which I use
Check it :) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/34
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can
to give an even handed
balanced overview of all the clients. For each client I was trying to empaphise
a 'theme'. Bitcoin-Qt is stability. Armory is advanced. Electrum is convenient.
MultiBit is ease of use.
From: Alan Reiner etothe...@gmail.com
To: Amir Taaki zgen
Hi,
Can we pull this? It's been there for almost 20 days now.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/32
My comment:
As a first step, this should probably be pulled right away and then
any improvements can be made after. Lets get the ball rolling rather
than debating the colour of the
look at the first line of the if statement
// Check for conflicts with in-memory transactions
CTransaction* ptxOld = NULL;
for (unsigned int i = 0; i tx.vin.size(); i++)
{
COutPoint outpoint = tx.vin[i].prevout;
if (mapNextTx.count(outpoint))
{
Hey,
Only a small thing - I think the first check in that function should be an
assert. There is a problem if that function is called a coinbase tx.
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover
This is a bad idea. The bitcoin protocol is (mostly) stateless. Stateless
protocols are more secure.
From: Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com
To: Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Thursday, April
Jeff elaborated the problems very well, but I just want to add this:
Your change is essentially relying (trusting) the server to track a piece of
information (your state). Anytime you start depending on another node in some
way, it is opening yourself up to be exploited. Nodes should be doing
Hi,
Is this an accurate and precise summary of the changes needed for P2SH and BIP
16?
== Block validation (starting with ProcessBlock) ==
* SigOpCount is now a LegacySigOpCount (CheckBlock)
* Main body of AcceptBlock() and rest of ProcessBlock() is unchanged.
* AddToBlockIndex() unchanged
*
Hi,
luke-jr withdrew BIP 16 and put forwards support for BIP 17. So now there's a
consensus to move forwards.
However he submitted BIP 18 to me today. From looking it over, I'm not even
sure the idea is tenable nor see the purpose when we are adopting BIP 17.
Personally I'd rather not see a
Hi,
I got sent this BIP:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_DRAFT:_getmemorypool#JSON-RPC_Method:_getmemorypool
What is your opinion on this? Is it BIP related?
It is a implementation-specific non-bitcoin-protocol proposal. My understanding
of BIPs is that
they apply across bitcoin
I support BIP 30.
I gave it a thought. The other ways of resolving this issue, all have various
niggles. This is the best way.
From: Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com
To: Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn zo...@zooko.com
Cc: Bitcoin Dev
I followed the instructions from build-msw.txt and am getting the same issue
from here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=45507.0
MSYS shell:
cd /c/db-4.8.30.NC-mgw/build_unix
sh ../dist/configure --enable-mingw --enable-cxx
make
$ make
./libtool --mode=compile gcc -c -I. -I../dist/..
BIP 21 had broad consensus among the major implementations:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0021
BIP 19 is a document to propose adding a new payment type to the scripting
system's template list.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0019
I haven't fully evaluated it completely but it seems solid. My
are making this stuff to decide :)
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Amir Taaki zgen...@yahoo.com wrote:
BIP 20 really has no support among implementations such as Bitcoin-Qt,
Electrum, MultiBit or Bitcoin-JS. As the most active and visible user facing
GUI projects (all with some form of URI Scheme
for those 77 characters when encoded.
That is the example quoted on the forums:
57HrrfEw6ZgRS58dygiHhfN7vVhaPaBE7HrrfEw6ZgRS58dygiHhfN7vVhaPaBiTE7vVhaPaBE7Hr
Could it be a mistake?
- Original Message -
From: Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com
To: Amir Taaki zgen...@yahoo.com
Cc: bitcoin
I added the ability to do controlled generation of blocks to gavin's fuzzer
https://github.com/genjix/bitcoin/tree/fuzzer
bitcoind -daemon
bitcoind
setfuzzpreviousblock 0019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f
bitcoind setgenerate true
It will start hashing the block
Gavin said:
Part of the controversy is whether really long bitcoin addresses would work--
would it be OK if the new bitcoin addresses were really long and looked
something like
this: 57HrrfEw6ZgRS58dygiHhfN7vVhaPaBE7HrrfEw6ZgRS58dygiHhfN7vVhaPaBiTE7vVhaPaBE7Hr
(or possibly even longer)
I've
2 compressed pubkeys
- Original Message -
From: Amir Taaki zgen...@yahoo.com
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 4:52 AM
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Quote on BIP 16
Gavin said:
Part
Why add 20 to COINBASE_MATURITY there?
The underlying protocol accepts spent transactions at 100 (COINBASE_MATURITY)
so this seems more like a measure to put people off spending until 120
confirms. If you are determined enough to hack your client, you can still spend
before 120 but after 100.
BIP 0020 is the old URI scheme BIPisized.
ATM it is Draft status.
I do not know enough about the discussion back last year to know whether to
move it to Accepted status or not. My feelings are that having a re-decision
(even if it was accepted last year) is healthy since it makes no sense to
Hey,
I heard there is a fuzzer in the works? Where can I find more details of this?
I'm going to write one for libbitcoin, but if one already exists then I'd
rather build on and use that.
Something simple like:
- Set previous block hash, set current target
- Start hashing
- Connect and send to
Hey,
Will get around to that write-up. Here is the page for next Tuesday:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki//10_Jan_2012
Feel free to add talking/discussion points to the agenda.
--
Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix
.
- Announced on forums/mailing lists.
- Throughout the week talking points are added to the meeting page.
After:
- Log of discussion is posted online.
- I will type an accessible summary for the community at large on
http://bitcoinmedia.com/
- Next weekly meeting is scheduled.
Amir Taaki
*We can go
Has anyone considered 'snapshot' frames (blocks).
Message to node:
getsnapshot: hash
Node responds with a 'block' message.
Then the hash for that particular snapshot is hardcoded into the sourcecode. It
would replace the checkpoints and use the last hash in that list.
Validating blocks is
This is maybe the best idea. I added it:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0015#IP_Transactions
Things I like about this:
- IP transactions are useful, but have a security flaw. This mitigates their
security problems.
- The code for IP transactions is already in Satoshi client. If other clients
I wrote this pre-draft:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0015
It's merely a starter for discussions.
Aliases are a way to lookup bitcoin addresses so I can type gen...@genjix.net
instead of 1jkddsjdskjwnk2j3kj232kjdkj
I'm confused about the problem we're trying to solve.
I was in brmlab and wanted to pay 1 BTC for a Club Mate. They had on the wall a
picture of their QR code and a bitcoin address. I don't own a mobile phone so
the QR code is
useless. Then I remembered FirstBits, went to my terminal and
]/
From: Christian Decker decker.christ...@gmail.com
To: Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net
Cc: Amir Taaki zgen...@yahoo.com; bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2011 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development
Hey,
Can we lock the version numbers to be the protocol version (which changes
rarely) and instead use the sub_version_num field + revision number for
individual builds?
Satoshi 0.4
BitcoinJava 120311
bitcoin-js 6
Like so. Otherwise we will have version bumping insanity :)
versioning
scheme.
If we're agreed then I'll start on that BIP.
From: Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com
To: Amir Taaki zgen...@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2011 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lock protocol version numbers
Good idea
: Amir Taaki zgen...@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2011 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lock protocol version numbers
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 6:33:12 PM Amir Taaki wrote:
Satoshi 0.5
What is Satoshi 0.5 anyway? 0.5's server is bitcoind and GUI is Bitcoin-Qt;
the wx GUI
Anybody know how to contact MT about getting it back online? I still haven't
finished copy-editing the BIPs and need access to them since there's a new one
to be added.
--
The demand for IT networking professionals
Hey,
The Zen of Python is relevant here: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
If a node incorrectly implements the standard then it should be shunned
immediately. Not only is this more secure, but it will ensure long term
62 matches
Mail list logo
