> Any objections from other transaction-validating implementations?
Sounds good to me. I think it's important to give people a chance to fix
their software, but Pieter's proposal does that.
On 10/21/2012 7:05 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> Any objections from other transaction-validating implementat
No objections.
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> Any objections from other transaction-validating implementations?
>
> I strongly support more precisely defining the transaction validity
> rules by changing the reference implementation.
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
>
>
Any objections from other transaction-validating implementations?
I strongly support more precisely defining the transaction validity
rules by changing the reference implementation.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
--
Everyone hate
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> In order to make the Bitcoin network rules more well-defined, I'd like
> to propose strict rules about what is acceptable, and which do not
> depend on OpenSSL's implementation.
I strongly support this too. It is good to make the protocol as
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> What do you think about these rules? If people want these rules,
> nothing would happen for now - just start try to find software that
> doesn't produce complying data. In a second step, these could be
> enabled as check similar to IsStandard
5 matches
Mail list logo
