(This response was originally off-list as moderators were still
deciding, here it is for those interested).
Hi Tom,
Thanks for reading the draft text and commenting! Replies inline.
Matt
On 05/08/16 00:40, Johnathan Corgan wrote:
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Tom mailto:t...
On 21/04/16 14:08, Marek Palatinus via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Sipa, you are probably the most competent to answer this.
> Could you please tell us your opinion? For me, this is
> straightforward, backward compatible fix and I like it a lot.
> Not sure about the process of changing "Final" BIP though.
Interesting, can you provide some historical context around it so I
understand better ?
Actually I know that your relay's protocol (and about what I see in
abstract) was about optimizing propagation time and not bandwidth.
And I agree that bandwidth is what need to be optimized for nodes.
So far t
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Pavol Rusnak via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> On 21/04/16 14:08, Marek Palatinus via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> Sipa, you are probably the most competent to answer this.
>> Could you please tell us your opinion? For me, this is
>> straightforward, backward compatible fix and I
I received this:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Pieter Wuille
Date: Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal to update BIP-32
To: Marek Palatinus
Cc: Bitcoin Dev
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Marek Palatinus wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 6:32 PM,
On 08/05/16 15:48, Marek Palatinus via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> unambiguously be used to refer to an idea. My suggestion would be to write
> a new BIP that overrides parts of BIP32, and then put a note in BIP32 that
> a better mechanism is available that is unlikely to change things in
> reality for th
