On 2012 January 31 Tuesday, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I think you've been deceived by people who have some interest in
promoting this as some sort of big controversy, or perhaps just
confused by the general level of noise.
Well that's good that there is no real problem.
It does not, in fact—
On 2012 January 31 Tuesday, Luke-Jr wrote:
Both BIP 16 and 17 are backward compatible enough that people can continue
to use the old clients with each other. An upgrade is only required to
send to (or create/receive on) the new 3...-form addresses. That being
Is that true? (I'm happy to be
Op 1 feb. 2012 10:48 schreef Andy Parkins andypark...@gmail.com het
volgende:
On 2012 January 31 Tuesday, Luke-Jr wrote:
Both BIP 16 and 17 are backward compatible enough that people can
continue
to use the old clients with each other. An upgrade is only required to
send to (or
On 2012 February 01 Wednesday, Pieter Wuille wrote:
old clients won't they? They don't pass IsStandard().
IsStandard() is for accepting transactions into the memory pool.
Non-standard transactions are verified just fine when they are in the block
chain.
Ah. My misunderstanding then.
Hello,
Gulp. Am a little nervous about wading into this swamp. However, it seems
to me that the debate has veered into the personal and away from the
technical. Surely if there are objections to both suggestions, that another
solution might be better? The answer doesn't have to be A or B,
On 2012 January 31 Tuesday, Luke-Jr wrote:
I'm not aware of any remaining *tangible* objections to BIP 17 at this
point (Gavin seems concerned over a theoretical
risk-that-nobody-has-thought-of), but if there's a better solution, I'm
perfectly fine Withdrawing BIP 17 to support it.
I imagine
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Andy Parkins andypark...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Gulp. Am a little nervous about wading into this swamp. However, it seems
to me that the debate has veered into the personal and away from the
I think you've been deceived by people who have some interest in
7 matches
Mail list logo
