.Hi there. Thank you for your work on this.
I've looked over https://gist.github.com/sipa/5d12c343746dad376c80 and
https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commit/bipstrictder . I didn't
actually audit the included reference implementation of
IsValidSignatureEncoding(), and I didn't check whether the test
I'm in favor of relative CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY, but I don't have a very
specific reason. I just have a vague worry that there can be "race
conditions" in which a txn with an absolute CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY goes
into the blockchain later than one of its signers expected that it
would, and therefore there
jgarzik wrote:
> 1) Rule changes. We don't want these.
In general? What constitutes a rule change?
For example, if I understand correctly (from what Gavin said at
Bitcoin 2013), there is a move afoot to lift the block size limit.
Although, when I went to confirm my understanding by reading the
3 matches
Mail list logo
