Although quite true, I actually agree though that there should be some sort of
checksum for the blocks. Bandwidth may not be a bottleneck now (or ever), but
it may be at some point. This change will help Bitcoin scale.
"It stopped being just a website a long time ago.
I agree with Joel. I think someone brought this up earlier as well. Most
OP_EVAL transactions won't be complex enough to require more than a few loops.
--Zell
"It stopped being just a website a long time ago. For many of us, most of us,
Wikipedia has become an indisp
not to trust a
particular node.
--Zell Faze
--- On Thu, 12/22/11, Andy Parkins wrote:
> From: Andy Parkins
> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Protocol extensions
> To: "Joel Joonatan Kaartinen"
> Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> Date: Thursday, December
pment] Fwd: [BIP 15] Aliases
To: "Zell Faze"
Cc: "Luke-Jr" , "Rick Wesson" ,
bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2011, 11:56 PM
Just so we're clear, what is the need for HTTP at all?
A query for a string and an answer can all b
Could we combine this proposal and the HTTPS proposal?
The DNSSEC TXT record could give instructions on how to query an HTTPS server
to get the address. Then we get the dynamism of HTTPS without having a rigid
URL scheme for querying the server along with the advantages of DNSSEC.
--- On Wed,
I agree with Luke-Jr. We need to try to find a decentralized solution if we
are going to implement BIP 15. Bitcoin needs to remain decentralized in every
aspect of the protocol or we lose its greatest strength.
I feel like the HTTPS idea would be a great idea for a client feature, but not
rea
6 matches
Mail list logo
