> discussion back here. The executive summary: Pieter and I feel like
> BIP 22 is overly complicated, and would like it to be simpler. I'd
> especially like to hear what people think will be the "will be used by
> lots of pool customers" features and what are the "will be used by
> less than 5%
I agree with Alan.
I too am happy to see my client listed on bitcoin.org, and I don't mind
Bitcoin-Qt being listed first. I have no problem with a "czar" approach if it
can solve conflicts.
I believe that it is useful to keep the 'clients' page on bitcoin.org, because
it contributes to clarify
I would like to propose a new BIP, that replaces BIP0039.
My initial problem was that BIP0039 is not backward compatible with Electrum.
When trying to solve that, I realized that the seed encoding used in Electrum
does not help, because it does not contain a version number information.
However,
I too support BIP21 over BIP20. However, I do not understand the "Sending money
via private key" feature; in which situation would such a URI be useful?
Also, I posted a proposal in the forum, to extend the URI syntax with
signatures. The goal would be to provide a proof of identity of the recip
> Regarding the idea of a signed URI, it is appealing, however, it may not
> work. If I understand it correctly, the main idea appears to be to protect
> a URI from malicious replacement
No. The main idea is to protect the consumer against a malicious seller
pretending that he has not been paid
Just another question concerning BIP21:
On the wiki, the description of the "message" parameter reads:
"message that shown to the user after scanning the QR code"
I believe that the purpose of this parameter is to contain a description of the
transaction. This has use cases that go beyond QR co
6 matches
Mail list logo
