On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Or alternatively, fix the reasons why users would have negative
>> experiences with full blocks
>>
>
> It's impossible, Mark. *By definition* if Bitcoin does not have
> sufficient capacity for everyone's transactions, some users who were using
I was part of adding in that test vector, and I think it's a good test
vector since it is an extreme edge-case of the current definition: If the
BIP38 proposal allows any password that can be in UTF-8, NFC normalized
form, those characters cover the various edge cases (combining characters,
null ch
>> 2014-05-18 13:14 GMT+01:00 Andreas Schildbach :
>> One problem we couldn't figure out here though - how to protect the
>> notes from unauthorized redeem. Like if someone else tries to reach your
>> wallet with his own NFC - how can we distinguish between deliberate
>> redeem by owner and fraudul
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Jack Scott wrote:
> BIP: XX
> Title: Physical key / edge detection software and PIN to generate a
> Bitcoin private key
> Author: Jack Scott
> Status: Idea
> Type: Standard Track
> Created: 13-3-2014
>
> Abstract:
> A method is proposed to generate a Bitcoin privat
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> If there was a way for a Bitcoin user to provide feedback on a payment
>> (ECDSA signature from one of the addresses involved in the payment, signing
>> an identifier of the payment and a feedback score)
>>
>
> Well now you're getting into the
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> if some sort of Stealth address or HD wallet root was the identity gaining
>> the reputation, then address re-use wouldn't have to be mandatory.
>>
> The identity would be the X.520 name in the signing cert that signed the
> payment request. It
On Mar 6, 2014 3:47 AM, "Mike Hearn" wrote:
>
> I just did my first contactless nfc payment with a MasterCard. It worked
very well and was quite delightful - definitely want to be doing more of
these in future. I think people will come to expect this kind of
no-friction payment experience and Bitc
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Peter Todd wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 04:17:47PM +0100, Natanael wrote:
> > Because it's trivial to create collisions! You can choose exactly what
> > output you want. That's why XOR is a very bad digest scheme.
>
> You're close, but not quite.
>
> So, imag
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:42 AM, slush wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> during recent months we've reconsidered all comments which we received
> from the community about our BIP39 proposal and we tried to meet all
> requirements for such standard. Specifically the proposal now doesn't
> require any specific
>
> My goal here is not necessarily to hide P2P nodes - we still need lots of
> clearnet P2P nodes for the forseeable future no matter what. Rather we're
> just using hidden services as a way to get authentication and encryption.
> Actually the 6-hop hidden service circuits are overkill for this
>
>
> 2) Secondly, we bump the protocol version, add a service flag and
> introduce a new P2P protocol command “tor?”. If a client sends a tor?
> message to a node that has the new service flag set, it will respond with a
> new “tor” message that contains a regular addr packet, with a single
> addres
> presented in the wordlist. In this particular case it may be only CAR or
> FAR (both cannot be in the wordlist because of rules in similarity).
>
> Marek
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Brooks Boyd wrote:
>
>> I was inspired to join the mailing list to comment on
I was inspired to join the mailing list to comment on some of these
discussions about BIP39, which I think will have great use in the Bitcoin
community and outside it as a way to transcribe binary data.
The one thought I had as the discussions about similar characters are
resulting in culling word
13 matches
Mail list logo
