Opinion: Lock in a blockheight to get rid of it 10 years in the future. Use it
as press that Bitcoin is going to lose $1,000,000 if some mystery person does
not put their transaction through by then, try for global presses. Use the
opportunity to get rid of it while you are able. Once gazetted
>
> Instead, it is this soft-fork proposal that is unprecedented. Let me
> reiterate what I posted in another thread:
>
> Bitcoin has *never* made a soft-fork, since the time of Satoishi, that
> invalidated transactions that send secured inputs to secured outputs
> (excluding uses of OP_NOP1-OP_NOP
Hi Lautaro,
Using regtest is not ideal for public networks, as anyone anywhere can
just rewrite the blockchain at their whim by mining a ton of blocks.
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 4:52 AM Lautaro Dragan wrote:
>
> Hi Karl-Johan, my two cents:
>
> At Po.et we use regtest to simulate reorgs in integra
Hi Matt,
On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 5:20 AM Matt Corallo wrote:
>
> To make testing easier, it may make sense to keep the existing block header
> format (and PoW) and instead apply the signature rules to some field in the
> coinbase transaction. This means SPV clients (assuming they only connect to
