Getting back to the original proposal:
RE: uuid instead of "main" / "test" in the payment protocol:
I vote no.
The payment protocol will become at least 3 BIPs:
1) Protocol messages (current gist, essentially)
2) MIME type
3) bitcoin: URI extension
An alt coin will need its own version of (2)
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Luke-Jr wrote:
> In some cases, multiple currencies can use the same blockchain (not just the
> singular genesis block). This use case *is* something we want to encourage -
> no reason for people to make an entirely new blockchain if their altcoin fits
> within th
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:20:22 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Melvin Carvalho
>
> wrote:
> > On 22 May 2013 16:07, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Melvin Carvalho
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Some out of band algo/hash could work so long as th
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Melvin Carvalho
wrote:
> On 22 May 2013 16:07, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Melvin Carvalho
>> wrote:
>> > Some out of band algo/hash could work so long as there was a one to one
>> > relationship between the described object and the
On 22 May 2013 16:07, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Melvin Carvalho
> wrote:
> > Some out of band algo/hash could work so long as there was a one to one
> > relationship between the described object and the UUID. In this case the
> > gensis block may not uniquely identif
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Melvin Carvalho
wrote:
> Some out of band algo/hash could work so long as there was a one to one
> relationship between the described object and the UUID. In this case the
> gensis block may not uniquely identify a coin.
What does this mean? It seems extremely u
On 21 May 2013 01:59, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> At the developer round-table it was asked if the payment protocol would
> alt-chains, and Gavin noted that it has a UTF-8 encoded string
> identifying the network ("main" or "test"). As someone with two
> proposals in the works which also require ch
This was meant to go to everyone:
On 5/20/13 7:45 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
>> So as to remain reasonably compliant with RFC 4122, I recommend that we
>> use Version 4 (random) UUIDs, with the random bits extracted from the
>> double-SHA256
Bitcoin currently uses raw hashes extensively as UUIDs; whether the payment
protocol should be influence by that or not, I've not given thought to yet.
Some alt coins may share a blockchain, or even merely the genesis block (two
currently do; despite one of those being a scamcoin, I think the po
Bitcoinj already has such chain id's and we use standard Java style reverse
DNS names: org.bitcoin.main, etc. If we want a more global naming system
that seems like a good compromise between uniqueness and readability.
On 20 May 2013 19:45, "Jeff Garzik" wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 7:59 PM,
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> So as to remain reasonably compliant with RFC 4122, I recommend that we
> use Version 4 (random) UUIDs, with the random bits extracted from the
> double-SHA256 hash of the genesis block of the chain. (For colored
> coins, the colored coin
At the developer round-table it was asked if the payment protocol would
alt-chains, and Gavin noted that it has a UTF-8 encoded string
identifying the network ("main" or "test"). As someone with two
proposals in the works which also require chain/coin identification (one
for merged mining, one
12 matches
Mail list logo
