On 31 Mar 2014, at 20:57, Roy Badami wrote:
Is namecoin actively maintained these days?
That's a very good quest. It was one of the reasons why we ruled out namecoin,
but not the only one.
Although in principle it is a similar concept to namecoin + PGP, in practice at
least for our device,
Re-reading this, even with the most recent message, is still isn't
clear _precisely_ how your technology works, or why it is better than
namecoin. User profiles (and distributed ledgers) need to reflect the
latest updates, and a stream of updates of over time is precisely what
bitcoin technology
The code will be available as soon as we are ready, and apologies again for it
not being a more meaningful conversation - I did say I hesitated about posting
it ;)
I think it is fair to say that we have not assumed anything about other
technologies, without asking if they can answer all (not
I posted some code on Reddit a while back around adding a simple x509
digital signature to a Bitcoin address URL, since you could gain the
benefit of an x.509 authenticated Bitcoin address without having to do a
full BIP70 implementation. It's not WoT, but x509, for all its flaws,
works very well
Hi all,
I understand this is a controversial proposal, but bear with me please.
I believe we cannot accept the current subsidy schedule anymore, so I
wrote a small draft BIP with a proposal to turn Bitcoin into a
limited-supply currency. Dogecoin has already shown how easy such
changes are, so I
The creation date in your BIP header has the wrong format. It should be
01-04-2014, per BIP 1.
:-)
On Tuesday, 1 April 2014, at 9:00 pm, Pieter Wuille wrote:
Hi all,
I understand this is a controversial proposal, but bear with me please.
I believe we cannot accept the current subsidy
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I understand this is a controversial proposal, but bear with me please.
I believe we cannot accept the current subsidy schedule anymore, so I
wrote a small draft BIP with a proposal to turn Bitcoin into a
This proposal will destroy Bitcoin. I would expect nothing less coming from
a Google employee.
--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
On Tuesday, April 01, 2014 7:00:07 PM Pieter Wuille wrote:
Hi all,
I understand this is a controversial proposal, but bear with me please.
I believe we cannot accept the current subsidy schedule anymore, so I
wrote a small draft BIP with a proposal to turn Bitcoin into a
limited-supply
luke, you might enjoy the book Topos of Music. It's a complete
mathematical music theory by a student of Grothendieck. He advanced
Euler's theories of harmony based on advanced category theory. I'm
sure there are many applications to Bitcoin.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Luke-Jr
Please, *music* is obsolete, but inline replies *are not*!
On Tuesday, April 01, 2014 7:16:42 PM Benjamin Cordes wrote:
luke, you might enjoy the book Topos of Music. It's a complete
mathematical music theory by a student of Grothendieck. He advanced
Euler's theories of harmony based on
I disagree with this proposal both in spirit and in practice.
We all know satoshi was the best programmer like no one ever was. Clearly he
intended this monetary supply from the beginning, who are we but mere mortals
to go against satoshi's will?
Also, should we really do this with a soft fork
I've sat on this for some time after starting this. I have forked this
from bitcoin core and am working on a secure tax mode for bitcoin. It
is written in Autoit. I know I know, scripting language alert! I would
like people to look at:
http://www.githubb.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
Look at it, and
On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 09:00:07PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
Hi all,
I understand this is a controversial proposal, but bear with me please.
I believe we cannot accept the current subsidy schedule anymore, so I
wrote a small draft BIP with a proposal to turn Bitcoin into a
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 09:00:07PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
The text can be found here: https://gist.github.com/sipa/9920696
What's interesting about this bug is we could also fix the problem - the
economic shock - by
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.name wrote:
The creation date in your BIP header has the wrong format. It should be
01-04-2014, per BIP 1.
Thanks - fixed!
--
Pieter
--
On 4/1/14, Matt Corallo bitcoin-l...@bluematt.me wrote:
Also, should we really do this with a soft fork when we can take this
opportunity to redesign the whole system with a hard fork? This is out
chance to switch to a whole new script engine!
+1
The hard fork also forces the whole community
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com wrote:
In case there are no further objections (excluding from people who
disagree with me), I'd like to request a BIP number for this. Any
number is fine, I guess, as long as it's finite.
With ten people commenting on this
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
But owing to a rather large bribe (or at least not less large than any
other offered by competing parties) I hereby assign BIP 42 for this
proposal.
What about BIP 420? Everyone knows if you add zero it's still the
I move to reclaim bip 42 as reserved for a bip containing either a reference to
musical dolphins or towels in the name.
Matt
On April 1, 2014 5:47:34 PM EDT, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com
wrote:
In case there are
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Daryl Banttari dbantt...@gmail.com wrote:
What about BIP 420? Everyone knows if you add zero it's still the same
number.
Similarly, everyone knows if you multiply both sides by zero, the
result is always a true statement.
--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com wrote:
But owing to a rather large bribe (or at least not less large than any
other offered by competing parties) I hereby assign BIP 42 for this
Chris,
Thank you for taking the time to look at my proposal.
1) pay to addresses are not fixed - ie you can have a different address for
each transaction (which is why BIP70 is necessary to allow per transaction
addresses via https.)
This is certainly true for a published address; however a
Hi Daryl
My proposal leverages the existing SSL key system
Ok I thought you were suggesting wrapping the URL in an additional PGP
signature.
--
___
Bitcoin-development
24 matches
Mail list logo
