Message: 6
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:26:19 +0200
From: Mike Hearn
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Protocol Specification
To: Krzysztof Okupski
Cc: Bitcoin Dev
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Nice work, but please don't call
On Sunday, 13 July 2014, at 7:32 pm, Richard Moore wrote:
> P.S. If it is valid, another question; what would happen if a transaction was
> self-referencing? I realize it would be very difficult to find one, but if I
> could find a transaction X whose input was X and had an output Y, would Y be
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> just out of curiosity, do you think it will be possible to create any
>> other proper protocol specifications rather than the C++ original?
>
>
> Well it's a finite code base so yes, it should be possible.
>
> The only problem is so far
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Krzysztof Okupski
wrote:
> I've renamed it to "Bitcoin Developer Specification" a little while ago.
> Maybe it should rather be named "Bitcoin Developer Reference"? Either
> way, creating a good description of Bitcoin is an incremental process
> and there are cert
I've renamed it to "Bitcoin Developer Specification" a little while ago.
Maybe it should rather be named "Bitcoin Developer Reference"? Either
way, creating a good description of Bitcoin is an incremental process
and there are certainly many quirks I'm not aware of. I hope that
together we will soo
got same error, did you manage to fix this?
--
Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and
search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck®
Code Sight™ - the same software t
>
> just out of curiosity, do you think it will be possible to create any
> other proper protocol specifications rather than the C++ original?
Well it's a finite code base so yes, it should be possible.
The only problem is so far everyone who tried it, didn't succeed :)
Heck even people wh
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Nice work, but please don't call it the "Bitcoin protocol spec". Your
> document is not a spec.
fair objection, fwiw.
> It is an attempt to describe in English the Bitcoin
> protocol, but anyone who implemented it based on your description wou
Ah, that's great. Still, it would be good to be careful with the word
"specification".
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Wladimir wrote:
> > As a loose description of the protocol for newbies it's an invaluable
> > resource and perhaps we should link to it from the developer guide.
>
> It has al
> As a loose description of the protocol for newbies it's an invaluable
> resource and perhaps we should link to it from the developer guide.
It has already been linked from the developer guide for quite a while,
under Additional Resources.
Wladimir
--
Nice work, but please don't call it the "Bitcoin protocol spec". Your
document is not a spec. It is an attempt to describe in English the Bitcoin
protocol, but anyone who implemented it based on your description would get
it wrong. For example you didn't mention the SIGHASH_SINGLE bug and many
othe
Conceptually all transactions in the block chain lie on a single timeline.
The fact that we quantise that timeline into blocks is in many ways neither
here nor there - it's still a strict line.
What *can* happen and you must be aware of is duplicated transactions.
Satoshi sort of assumed this coul
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Krzysztof Okupski
wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> thank you for your invaluable feedback. As requested, the spec
> will from now on be under version control. It can be found under:
>
> https://github.com/minium/Bitcoin-Spec
>
> The old link to the PDF will be, just in case
Dear all,
thank you for your invaluable feedback. As requested, the spec
will from now on be under version control. It can be found under:
https://github.com/minium/Bitcoin-Spec
The old link to the PDF will be, just in case, kept updated as well.
Warm greetings,
Krzysztof Okupski
-
14 matches
Mail list logo
