Re: [Bitcoin-development] getmemorypool BIP process

On Saturday, March 03, 2012 6:51:34 PM Geir Harald Hansen wrote: > Long polling as currently implemented in pools has a race condition. > Does the miner reconnect first or does another block change happen > first? "Double" block changes are common with merged mining and I'm > doing all sorts of tri

Re: [Bitcoin-development] getmemorypool BIP process

On 28.02.2012 23:06, Luke-Jr wrote: > Please review and comment/critique: > https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_DRAFT:_getmemorypool Looking forward to implementing this in my pool backend and miner. A few comments: "transactions add or remove transactions (both of the above; default if "transa

Re: [Bitcoin-development] getmemorypool BIP process

> I've updated the draft to include long polling, and remove some assumptions of > using HTTP for transport. Looks good to me. On 3/3/2012 4:44 PM, Luke-Jr wrote: > On Saturday, March 03, 2012 10:05:58 AM Gavin Andresen wrote: >>> HTTP and JSON-RPC are a client-server model; there is no way for t

Re: [Bitcoin-development] getmemorypool BIP process

Btw - question to Stefan as the JavaScript guru - what do you consider the standard/defacto-standard/right/best-practice way of doing S->C json-rpc, what (javascript) library do you use for this? As for an explicitly standard way, there is none. The JSON-RPC 1.0 spec

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Proposal for a new opcode

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Watson Ladd wrote: > Dear all, > I am proposing a new opcode for the purposes of anonymous > transactions. That's very exciting! I'm eager to read the paper for all of the details, and working out what else would need to be done besides a new opcode to enable stro

Re: [Bitcoin-development] getmemorypool BIP process

> > HTTP and JSON-RPC are a client-server model; there is no way for the server > to > make calls to the client. It's not practical to expect clients to run their > own JSON-RPC server - many cannot listen on WAN ports at all. Well, I think what Stefan had in mind was http keep-alive combined

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Duplicate transactions vulnerability

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 17:48, Pieter Wuille wrote: > Hello all, > > I've written about it in BIP30[2]. There is a patch for the reference > client, which has been tested and verified to make the attack > impossible. The change is backward compatible in the same way BIP16 > is: if a supermajority

Re: [Bitcoin-development] getmemorypool BIP process

On Saturday, March 03, 2012 10:05:58 AM Gavin Andresen wrote: > > HTTP and JSON-RPC are a client-server model; there is no way for the > > server to make calls to the client. It's not practical to expect clients > > to run their own JSON-RPC server - many cannot listen on WAN ports at > > all. > >

Re: [Bitcoin-development] getmemorypool BIP process

On Saturday, March 03, 2012 9:23:08 AM Stefan Thomas wrote: > From what I understand the BIP uses a polling model, e.g. a miner would > use getmemorypool to request new work from a pool in intervals. Would it > make sense to specify a version of the API supporting long polling? You mean explicitl

Re: [Bitcoin-development] getmemorypool BIP process

From what I understand the BIP uses a polling model, e.g. a miner would use getmemorypool to request new work from a pool in intervals. Would it make sense to specify a version of the API supporting long polling? For BitcoinJS specifically, since we also support JSON-RPC over TCP, I'd even be

Re: [Bitcoin-development] JSON-RPC is BIP territory or not?

On Saturday, March 03, 2012 8:44:45 AM Stefan Thomas wrote: > I have some comments on the content of the BIP, but since this thread is > more of a meta-discussion I'll wait until the BIP is officially proposed. Please do comment on the content, in the original thread if you prefer: Message-Id: <2

Re: [Bitcoin-development] JSON-RPC is BIP territory or not?

Since several independent clients (I know at least libcoin and BitcoinJS ) aim to implement JSON-RPC APIs which are either a superset of the origi