Hi Jeff!
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:11 AM, Jeff Johnson via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Raw block
> 998,198 bytes
>
> Gzip
> 521,212 bytes (52% ratio)
> (needs 2MB to decompress).
>
I don't know how you got that raw block, but it seems a bit odd.
If you look at
A random thought: aren't most communication over a data link already
compressed, at some point?
When I used a modem, we had the V.42bis protocol. Now, nearly all ADSL
connections using PPPoE, surely are. And so on.
I'm not sure another level of generic, data agnostic kind of compression
will really
Hi!
To anyone that followed the discussion (from some time ago) about the
proposed new URI for Blockchain references / exploration, I just wanted to
point out that I have collected the feedback provided, reworked the text,
put the BIP on GitHub and created a pull request:
https://github.com/Marco
ough the BIP draft and left a few of comments, but I really
> like its simplicity and focus. Good work!
>
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Marco Pontello via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > To anyone that followed the discussion (from some time ago) about the
>
ally thank you for
> >> using the genesis block hash as the unique chain ID.
> >>
> >> I wen't through the BIP draft and left a few of comments, but I really
> >> like its simplicity and focus. Good work!
> >>
> >> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 3:1
with the genesis blocks hashs, in a way that doesn't need to be
> changed,
> >> > maybe...
> >> >
> >> > Now the main change would be to put in a proper BIP number! :)
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Jorge Timó
Sorry to ask again but... what's up with the BIP number assignments?
I thought that it was just more or less a formality, to avoid conflicts and
BIP spamming. And that would be perfectly fine.
But since I see that it's a process that can take months (just looking at
the PR request list), it seems t
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> As part of the hard-fork proposed in the HK agreement(1) we'd like to make
> the
> patented AsicBoost optimisation useless, and hopefully make further similar
> optimizations useless as we
Hi!
My first post here, hope I'm following the right conventions.
I had this humble idea for a while, so I thought to go ahead and propose
it.
BIP: XX
Title: URI scheme for Blockchain exploration
Author: Marco Pontello
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Created: 29 August 2015
Abstract
That surely make sense.
A URI like that perfectly readable, unambiguous and simple enough.
And nice to see a Wallet developer showing interest for this! :)
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On 08/29/2015 06:31 PM
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Jorge Timón <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> I would really prefer chain= over network=
> By chainID I mean the hash of the genesis block, see
>
> https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/commit/3191d5e8e75687a27cf466b7a4c70bdc04809d39
> I'm completely
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Richard Moore wrote:
> Yes! Good point, network should be encoded. Not sure I like this format
> yet, but what if it was part of the authority, like block:testnet. Like
> http uses port 80 by default, you could have block by default refer to
> block:mainnet.
>
> E
I see your point. But I personally like that the chain part could be
optional, given that the vast majority of the references in the end will be
to Bitcoin main net.
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:16 PM, Matt Whitlock
wrote:
> Isn't this all backward? The "authority" component of the URL should
> ide
Oh, my bad! Right, sounds pretty good to me then.
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Matt Whitlock
wrote:
> The authority part in a URI is optional.
>
>
> blockchain:/tx/ca26cedeb9cbc94e030891578e0d2b688a28902114f6ad2f24ecd3918f76c17f
>
> Notice the lack of a double-slash.
>
>
> On Tuesday, 1 Sept
None that I can see.
In fact I was just about to ask for some details about this part of the
process, so this come just at the right time.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> The process in BIP01 was written when we use
15 matches
Mail list logo
