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

2014-04-07 Thread kjj
Multi-sig requires infrastructure. It isn't a magic wand that we can wave to make everyone secure. The protocols and techniques necessary don't exist yet, and apparently no one has much of an incentive to create them. I mean no offense, and I don't mean to pick on you. Your post stuck out

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin

2014-04-03 Thread kjj
Matt Whitlock wrote: The creation date in your BIP header has the wrong format. It should be 01-04-2014, per BIP 1. At first, I thought this was a second April Fool's joke, but then I looked and saw that all of the BIPs really do use this format. As far as I can tell, we are using this

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Handling miner adoption gracefully for embedded consensus systems via double-spending/replace-by-fee

2014-03-25 Thread kjj
Troy Benjegerdes wrote: Mark Friedenbach wrote: Bitcoin is not a centralized system, and neither is its development. I don't even know how to respond to that. Bringing up altchains is a total red herring. This is *bitcoin*-development. Please don't make it have to become a moderated mailing

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Multisign payment protocol?

2014-03-10 Thread kjj
I was trying to use bip10 for multisig and coinjoin, but there was a problem with it. I'll have to look back at my notes, but I thought I sent you a message about it. And then real life swallowed my bitcoin time... I think the bottom line was that it would be useful in the generic case with

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin-development Digest, Vol 31, Issue 25

2013-12-10 Thread kjj
Ryan Carboni wrote: And the economic parameters of bitcoin are not fixed in stone. If there needs to be a change, it will be messy but it could happen. Need is an awfully big word. One thing we are certain of is that some guy telling us all that we are wrong is nowhere near the need level.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Monetary Authority for Bitcoin

2013-12-09 Thread kjj
Ryan Carboni wrote: Bitcoin lacks a Central Bank. This is a feature, not a bug. Also, this is offtopic. Political debate is thataway -. bitcoin-development is for development and technical discussion. -- Sponsored

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Floating fees and SPV clients

2013-12-03 Thread kjj
After reading all 99 messages in this thread, I think allowfee is just about perfect. It effectively lets merchants to give an allowance against the purchase price for network fees, if they choose. It is still up to the sender (and/or the sender's software) to get the fees right. Sometimes

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Feedback requested: reject p2p message

2013-10-27 Thread kjj
Any reason not to use actual HTTP codes? I'm not aware of any major deficiency in them. Most of them won't apply to us, which is fine, they don't seem to apply to HTTP either. We can extend the scheme on our own if we find a good reason to. That implies 16 bits, or a varint. I would avoid

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Feedback requested: reject p2p message

2013-10-25 Thread kjj
The HTTP status code system seems to work well enough, and seems to give the best of both worlds. A 3 digit numeric code that is machine-readable, and a freeform text note for humans. The clever part about that system was in realizing that the numeric codes didn't need to account for every