[bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Standard address format for timelocked funds

2017-07-07 Thread ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev
BIP: ? Title: Standard address format for timelocked funds Author: ZmnSCPxj Comments-Summary: ? Comments-URI: ? Status: ? Type: ? Created: 2017-07-01 License: CC0-1.0 == Abstract == OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY provides a method of locking funds until a particular time arrives. One potential use of th

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP

2017-07-07 Thread Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Larger block sizes is not likely to have a meaningful impact on fee pressure. > Any expectations that do not match the reality are merely misguided, and > should not be a basis for changing Bitcoin. I think it's very clear that

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP

2017-07-07 Thread Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
> Maximum transaction size is kept, to maximize compatibility with current > software and prevent algorithmic and data size DoS's. IIRC, it is actually increased by ~81 bytes, and doesn't count witness data if on Segwit transactions (so in effect, nearly 4 MB transactions are possible). This pro

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP

2017-07-07 Thread Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote: > This is not a hard fork, simply adding a new limit is a soft fork. You > appear to be confused - as originally written, AFAIR, Jeff's btc1 branch > did not increase the block size, your specification here matches that > origina

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP

2017-07-07 Thread Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Hello, > > Here is a BIP that matches the reference code that the Segwit2x group has > built and published a week ago. I'm happy to see that someone has begun writing a specification. But I am appalled to see one just

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP

2017-07-07 Thread Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev
This is horribly under-specified (ie not possible to implement from what you've written, and your implementation doesn't match at all, last I heard). > Specification > The plain block size is defined as the serialized block size without > witness programs. > Deploy a modified BIP91 to activate Se

[bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP

2017-07-07 Thread Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev
Hello, Here is a BIP that matches the reference code that the Segwit2x group has built and published a week ago. This BIP and code satisfies the requests of a large part of the Bitcoin community for a moderate increase in the Bitcoin non-witness block space coupled with the activation of Segwit.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds

2017-07-07 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
What if you want height based but lockinontimeout = false ? On 7 Jul 2017 8:09 am, "shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I have written a height based reference implementation as well as updated > the BIP text in the following proposals > > "lockinontimeou