Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed BIP 70 extension

2014-06-25 Thread Gmail
On Jun 25, 2014, at 10:15, slush sl...@centrum.cz wrote: Good standard must be explicit as much as possible. Having million optional fields with ambiguous meaning is even worse than not having these fields. +1. BIP70 is important. We want to keep it very simple and generalized, or there is

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed BIP 70 extension

2014-06-24 Thread Gmail
On Jun 24, 2014, at 10:32, slush sl...@centrum.cz wrote: Sounds like marketing bullshit to me. It does not have even statistical meaning; well, you can save a lot of satoshis, but nobody tell you that the merchant cut you on BTC/USD exchange rate in tens of %. People would also abuse

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed BIP 70 extension

2014-06-24 Thread Gmail
Ok, wanting structured data is a decent argument, but why this random arbitrary case in particular? There are hundreds of fields like this that people might want to use. If we're going to support one random cosmetic field, we might as well support them all with a generic structured data

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed BIP 70 extension

2014-06-24 Thread Gmail
On Jun 24, 2014, at 16:12, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com wrote: It would be silly to add a generic stuff field inside a container format that ALREADY has all the mechanisms necessary for forwards and backwards extensibility. I agree. It would be even sillier to start specifying

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?

2014-05-20 Thread Gmail
Unlikely. I doubt any significant portion of miners in china will continue to mine on a china-specific chain, since it will certainly be outmined by non-Chinese miners, and will be orphaned eventually. More likely is that mining interests in china will make special arrangements to circumvent

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Fee Formula Proposal

2014-05-12 Thread Gmail
What about 0 confirmation inputs? Mightn't this make tiny spam transactions unsafely inexpensive? On May 12, 2014, at 20:21, Peter Grigor pe...@grigor.ws wrote: I propose the transaction fee should be calculated from a percentage of the input amount divided by the confirmations of the

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bits: Unit of account

2014-04-20 Thread Gmail
People in the Bitcoin community are sometimes resistant to the idea of using the word credit as a unit of Bitcoin, because Bitcoin is not a credit-based system. However, given that the average person has close to no understanding of what credit means, and probably no concern for the