On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 23:26:57 -0800, Wladimir wrote:Such a thing would be interesting for a future BIP standard. I see one problem here: for an unsigned payment request there isn't really an "origin". Browser URI handlers don't send the referrer either.Yeah, good point. If you have a cert, we have
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Jeremy Spilman wrote:
> There's a open bug (#3628) and pull request (#3684) to provide negative
> feedback (yellow background) for a missing or invalid signature, but it
> seems like there's some debate on whether bitcoind should do that...
>
The consensus there i
We currently have subtle positive feedback of a signed payment request in
the form of the green background. Unsigned requests simply show up without
the green background, as well as requests which provide a certificate but
have a missing or invalid signature.
There's a open bug (#3628) and p
On 28 February 2014 14:42, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
>
> https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/commit/db4d8e21d99551bef4c807aa1534a074e4b7964d
>
> In one way in particular, the transaction fees per kilobyte completely
> failed to account for the actual cost to the network. If Bitcoin had
>
On 02/28/2014 07:25 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> Transaction fees are a DoS mitigating cost to the person making the
> transaction, but they are generally not paid to the people who
> actually incur costs in validating the blockchain. Actual transaction
> processing costs are an externality that i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Transaction fees are a DoS mitigating cost to the person making the
transaction, but they are generally not paid to the people who
actually incur costs in validating the blockchain. Actual transaction
processing costs are an externality that is complet
On 2/28/14, Peter Todd wrote:
> As usual, you don't need a hardfork.
>
> Anyway, one-sided trade is sufficient to get a functioning marketplace
> up and running and test out the many other issues with this stuff prior
> to forking anything.
I'm totally FOR experimenting with this as it is and I'm
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
>
> Either the transaction fees are sufficient to pay the cost for whatever
> random junk anyone wants to put there, or they are not, and if they are
> not, then I suggest you re-think the fee structure rather than trying
> to pre-regulate
Now we're starting to see the first companies deploy BIP70, we're
encountering a need for identity delegation. This need was long foreseen by
the way: it's not in BIP70 because, well, we had to draw the line for v1
somewhere, and this is an issue that mostly affects payment processors. But
I figure
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:09:23AM -0800, Jeremy Spilman wrote:
> If I understand correctly, the risk here is this would open a
> historically large discrepancy between MIN_RELAY and the expected
> minimum fee to actually obtain block inclusion. I don't know if
> that's true, but I think that's wha
10 matches
Mail list logo
