IMHO you should almost never publish a service that asks users for private
keys.
A warning isn't enough. Your server might get compromised.
"Move your coins by yourself" isn't even correct if your server is involved.
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 at 13:26, Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists
I think one could make the argument that the only people who talk
about and understand 24 bit audio or 256 bit cryptography are the ones
who can tell the difference very easily.
To me, your example seems to try hard to make the case for a problem
that won't exist in reality.
Bitcoin (BTC), Millib
On 13 December 2017 at 22:36, David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> - Microbitcoins is not a homonym for any other word in English (and
> probably not in any other language), whereas "bit" and "bits" have
> more than a dozen homonyms in English---some of which are quite common
> in gener
Probably a bad idea for various reasons, but tagging (fee paying)
transactions with info about the capabilities of the node that created
it might be interesting? Might be useful to gauge economic support for
certain upgrades, especially if excluding long transaction chains,
etc. In the very least i
> Why are multiple results separated by a line-feed rather than using a JSON
> Array?
> * Clients ought to cache historical data, and using a line-feed format allows
> them to simply append to a cache file.
> * Parsing JSON typically requires the entire data parsed together as a single
> memory
> This could even come in the form of a Bitcoin address.
Wouldn't this actually *need* to be a bitcoin address that is included in a
block to get any real assurances about the age if this node id? Otherwise
malicous nodes could lie and claim to have seen a brand new node id years
ago already.
Eve
I guess the same could be said about the softfork flavoured SW
implementation. In any case, the strategy pattern helps with code structure
in situations like this.
2015-12-30 14:29 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> As a first impression, I think
Maybe we should first gather concrete estimates about and roughly agree on
- how long SW (SF) development will probably take
- how long the ecosystem needs to prepare for a hardfork (SW (HF) or a
simple can kicking block size increase)
Opinions differ wildly from what it looks like, but maybe we
This is childish and very disappointing to see.
2015-10-06 9:20 GMT+02:00 Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> I prefer the term "clown".
>
> Can we please move on?
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "cipher anthem via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev@list
2015-10-02 15:14 GMT+02:00 jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> According to the Oxford Dictionary, "coin" as a verb means "invent (a new
> word or phrase)". Undoubtedly you created the first functional SPV client
> but please retract the claim "I coined the term SPV"
2015-10-01 12:15 GMT+02:00 Wladimir J. van der Laan :
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 12:10:45PM +0200, Marcel Jamin wrote:
> > I think the question has already been answered for you by the companies
> > that build on top of it, the investments being made and the $3.5 billion
> > market cap. The 1.0.0 t
> Mostly because we don't use the numbers as a signaling mechanism. They
just count up, every half year.
OK, but then it's not semantic versioning (as btcdrak claims).
> Otherwise, one'd have to ask hard questions like 'is the software mature
enough to be called 1.0.0'
I think the question has a
production.
2015-10-01 11:17 GMT+02:00 Btc Drak :
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Any particular reason bitcoin versioning doesn't follow the SemVer spec?
>>
>
> We do: a
Any particular reason bitcoin versioning doesn't follow the SemVer spec?
2015-10-01 10:50 GMT+02:00 Wladimir J. van der Laan via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 05:57:42PM +, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 24, 2015 11:25:56 AM Wla
> connection
> > is infinitesimally small.
> >
> > 2015-09-09 20:51 GMT+02:00 Jorge Timón :
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sep 9, 2015 8:36 PM, "Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev"
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I propose t
I think the overlap of people who want to run a serious mining operation
and people who are unable to afford a slightly above average internet
connection is infinitesimally small.
2015-09-09 20:51 GMT+02:00 Jorge Timón :
>
> On Sep 9, 2015 8:36 PM, "Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev"
I propose to:
a) assess what blocklimit is currently technically possible without driving
up costs of running a node up too much. Most systems currently running a
fullnode probably have some capacity left.
b) set the determined blocklimit at the next reward halving
c) then double the blocksize l
I'm going to list a few assumtions / observations / understandings around
this debate. Please point out the incorrect ones.
* Most developers here agree that 1 MB is not a magic constant and that the
limit has to increase eventually.
* Most developers want to reduce the amount of policy decisions
His account on that website was also compromised.
2015-08-17 21:02 GMT+02:00 Anon Moto via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> Satoshi,
>
> As much as I want to believe this is you it's very difficult to ignore the
> fact that Vistomail could have been hacked and I'm currently
In that case it didn't remedy the problem of constantly full blocks, but
got a ton of people on board the bitcoin train in the meanwhile. And with
them more interest, investments, research and ideas.
In the case we increase the limit and no government or banking group
immediately uses up all the s
> Quite possibly bigger blocks == more users == more nodes and more miners.
I agree and would say that this is the only prediction of bitcoin's future
we can be absolutely sure of: more users equals more decentralization as
long as the cost of running a node is not prohibitively high.
It's incred
He measured the upload capacity of the peers by downloading from them, or
am I being dumb? :)
2015-07-23 18:05 GMT+02:00 Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
>
>
> On 23 July 2015 10:19:59 GMT-04:00, slurms---
22 matches
Mail list logo