On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:12 AM, s7r s...@sky-ip.org wrote:
Thanks for your reply. I agree. Allen has a good point in the previous
email too, so the suggestion might not fix anything and complicate things.
The BIP 62 approach to malleability isn't the only option. Another
approach is to sign
that addresses the multisignature use-case.
The BIP 45 spec does a lot of extra work to make multisignature work
I'm not trying to criticize your proposal. I'm just trying to
understand what it's trying to accomplish.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Kefkius kefk...@maza.club
William Swanson swanson...@gmail.com:
It's not really clear why this is better than BIP 44 as it already
stands. You have the same fields, but they are just in a different
order. Couldn't you just use the existing BIP 44 hierarchy, but add
the convention that wallet/account N is the same wallet
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Eric Voskuil e...@voskuil.org wrote:
A MITM can receive the initial broadcast and then spoof it by jamming the
original. You then only see one.
You are right, of course. There is no way to make Bluetooth 100%
secure, since it is an over-the-air technology. You
Yes. A few of us over here in San Diego actually started working on a
format like this a few months ago, but it's been on the back burner
for a while.
Our motivation was to come up with a shared HD wallet format. Say I
would like create a 2-of-3 multisig wallet using my phone, PC, and
I am attempting to write a parser for bip-0021 URI's, including
support for the new bip-0072 payment parameters. My goal is absolute
correctness. Unfortunately, these BIP's have a few ambiguities and
mistakes which ought to be corrected.
First, I would like to point out that internet RFC
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
Yes please, pull req would be great! I also noticed that escaping doesn't
seem to be necessary, and the resultant de-escaped QRcodes are certainly
much nicer! Thanks!
All right, I have submitted the pull request. Hopefully, the
Mail list logo