On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:53:08PM +1000, Gareth Williams wrote:
>Bitcoin is this perfect /trustless/ mathematical machine [...]
>
>2. the economic majority will not cooperate to reinterpret history
>
> [this proposal was...] replacing it with:
>
>2. the economic majority will not cooperate to rei
Agreed with Mike. It doesn't really matter what the signature field is
set to. Changing the standard now is too hard with too little benefit.
On 4/28/14, 12:14 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Who cares what it is? Setting to an empty byte array is fine, IMO. The
> payment protocol is already rolling out.
On 04/28/2014 07:32 AM, Sergio Lerner wrote:
> So you agree that: you need a periodic connection to a honest node, but
> during an attack you may loose that connection. This is the assumption
> we should be working on, and my use case (described in
> http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/smartsp
Who cares what it is? Setting to an empty byte array is fine, IMO. The
payment protocol is already rolling out. It's implemented in several
wallets, BitPay implements it, Coinbase is implementing it, etc.
-10 for changing such a basic thing at this point. It'd cause chaos for
the early adopter
On 27/04/2014 02:05 p.m., Mark Friedenbach wrote:
>
> On 04/27/2014 05:36 AM, Sergio Lerner wrote:
>>> Without invoking moon math or assumptions of honest peers and
>>> jamming-free networks, the only way to know a chain is valid is to
>>> witness the each and every block. SPV nodes on the other
There is a discussion about clarifying how BIP70 signs payment requests
here:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/41
The issue is what to do with the signature field before signing. The code
Mike and I initially wrote does this:
request.set_signature(string(""));
(sets signature to the em
Someone who wanted to remain anonymous sent me in this idea, which I'll
admit I'm kicking myself for not having thought of earlier. They sent
me this hash so they can claim credit for it later should they choose to
reveal their identity:
bb0de552f81fa356b99fbeef65fa532bb5884efee2cbe92f66509af8
>
> I can't remember who I saw discussing this idea. Might have been Vitalik
> Buterin?
>
Yes, he described it in an article a couple of months ago:
http://blog.ethereum.org/2014/01/15/slasher-a-punitive-proof-of-stake-algorithm/
but it is an old idea.
For example, I've mentioned punishment of t
8 matches
Mail list logo
