On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Maciej Trebacz wrote:
> So if you have multiple addresses you can't
> sign them with a single private key and include that signature in the
> transaction so other party can verify it against your public key. This could
> become very handy though - a reputable wall
As far as I know current Bitcoin protocol doesn't let you to include any
arbitrary data with the transactions (as it would become non-standard and
clients would not relay it). So if you have multiple addresses you can't
sign them with a single private key and include that signature in the
transacti
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> That would be annoying for testing. Regtest mode allows you to create a
> new block by just running "setgenerate true" (it switches itself off after
> creating a block). If you had to set up a complicated set of separate
> programs just to do r
That would be annoying for testing. Regtest mode allows you to create a new
block by just running "setgenerate true" (it switches itself off after
creating a block). If you had to set up a complicated set of separate
programs just to do regtest mode that'd be a step backwards, IMO.
On Thu, Aug 22
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Maciej Trebacz wrote:
> Will removing "getwork" from the client impact the "setgenerate" RPC call?
> I.e. would you still be able to generate coins on testnet-in-a-box this way,
> or would you need a dedicated miner for that? testnet-in-a-box is very
> useful for t
Will removing "getwork" from the client impact the "setgenerate" RPC call?
I.e. would you still be able to generate coins on testnet-in-a-box this
way, or would you need a dedicated miner for that? testnet-in-a-box is very
useful for testing and easy to setup, it would be great if it stays that
way
6 matches
Mail list logo
