On Sep 13, 2011 11:40 AM, "Luke-Jr" wrote:
> Once created, they must submit the
> transaction to a staff member with the proper authority to bring it to the
> offline transaction-signing wallet (on a USB key), where it is signed, and
> returned to this third wallet.
I agreed up to this point. Pri
On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 12:48:58 PM Douglas Huff wrote:
> On Sep 13, 2011 11:40 AM, "Luke-Jr" wrote:
> > Once created, they must submit the
> > transaction to a staff member with the proper authority to bring it to
> > the offline transaction-signing wallet (on a USB key), where it is
> > s
On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 11:06:37 AM Gavin Andresen wrote:
> Fixing (2) is easier; incorporating a ntp library and/or simply
> removing the bitcoin mining code from the client but requiring pools
> and miners to have accurate-to-within-a-minute system clocks (or their
> blocks will be "discou
On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 10:43:27 AM Gavin Andresen wrote:
> 3) I'd really like to come to consensus on one or more
> 'multi-signature' standard transactions to enable much better wallet
> backup and security.
More important in this area, IMO, is support for deterministic keychains in
walle
Gavin Andresen wrote:
> Background:
>
> Timejacking:
>http://culubas.blogspot.com/2011/05/timejacking-bitcoin_802.html
>
> And a recent related exploit launched against the low-difficulty
> alternative chains:
>https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=43692.msg521772#msg521772
>
>
> Seems to
> Fixing (2) is easier; incorporating a ntp library and/or simply
> removing the bitcoin mining code from the client but requiring pools
> and miners to have accurate-to-within-a-minute system clocks (or their
> blocks will be "discouraged") seems reasonable to me.
Incorporating NTP seems overkil
> 2) Bitcoin's "what time is it" code is kind of a hack.
...
> Fixing (2) is easier; incorporating a ntp library and/or simply
> removing the bitcoin mining code from the client but requiring pools
> and miners to have accurate-to-within-a-minute system clocks (or their
> blocks will be "discourage
Background:
Timejacking:
http://culubas.blogspot.com/2011/05/timejacking-bitcoin_802.html
And a recent related exploit launched against the low-difficulty
alternative chains:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=43692.msg521772#msg521772
Seems to me there are two fundamental problems:
1
0.4 RELEASE
Bitcoin version 0.4 release candidate 2 looks stable; I've been
running a slightly-modified version of it on the Faucet website with
no issues for a couple of days now, and am not aware of any
show-stopper issues.
I built and uploaded OSX binaries to github:
https://github.com/bitco
These are now formally announced:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=43626.0
--
BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA
Learn about the latest advances in developing for the
BlackBerry® mobile plat
10 matches
Mail list logo
