On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:37:30PM -0700, Jeremy Spilman wrote:
> Just an aside...
>
> The 1BTC bountry John references below is a 1BTC P2SH output, where the
> redeemScript he provided does hash to the expected value, and is itself a
> 2-of-3 multisig, with the following pubkeys, expressed as
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> I'm really looking forward to this. Currently bitcoinj gets a small but
> steady stream of bug reports of the form "my transaction did not propagate".
> It's flaky because the library picks one peer to send the transaction to,
> and then watches
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> If I understand the code correctly, it's not about rejecting blocks.
>
I was referring to the fork alerts that Matt did. They also alert you if
there's a missed upgrade.
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
If I understand the code correctly, it's not about rejecting blocks.
It's about noticing that >50% of recent blocks are declaring a version
number that is meaningless to you. Chances are, there's been a soft
fork and you should upgrade.
On 10/30/13 1:
> But if you are getting soft-forked recent versions of the reference
> implementation WILL alert you; see this code in main.cpp:
>
Perhaps I'm confused about how we're using the term soft fork. My
understanding is that this is where a new upgrade is designed to look valid
to old nodes, and if you
5 matches
Mail list logo
