Matches for a, 205125 total results Sorted by newest | relevance
Tue Nov 08 13:43:53 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> understand, this is a political judgment, not a technical one, there is no appeal.
Tue Nov 08 13:43:43 UTC 2016 <adlai> a spend from p2sh, in a block, could go to your address
Tue Nov 08 13:43:01 UTC 2016 <adlai> but this is like saying, "any bitcoin sent to an address 1XYZabc542etcetc which is not one of the addresses from which I can spend, is not a valid Bitcoin payment", and one would not be 100% incorrect
Tue Nov 08 13:42:27 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> and can go die in a fuckfire.
Tue Nov 08 13:42:10 UTC 2016 <adlai> not a valid payment to you, sure
Tue Nov 08 13:41:25 UTC 2016 <kakobrekla> yeah, but you can do 'its a running joke' every time mp fails like an idiot
Tue Nov 08 13:40:37 UTC 2016 <punkman> funkenstein_: presumably nobody will send native segwit (which looks like anyone can pay) for a while, but I'm sure there will be some intrepid souls
Tue Nov 08 13:40:05 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> pankkake: i read the thing as a running joke.
Tue Nov 08 13:38:43 UTC 2016 <assbot> The necessary prerequisite for any change to the Bitcoin protocol on Trilema - A blog by Mircea Popescu. ... ( http://bit.ly/1UyPaxv )
Tue Nov 08 13:36:00 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> let'em die in a fire.
Tue Nov 08 13:10:27 UTC 2016 <adlai> there may be interest in a proper (eg bip17) replacement, but i doubt it's significant
Tue Nov 08 13:09:47 UTC 2016 <adlai> something makes me suspect that a vpatch adding bip16 validation of p2sh inputs to trb would be compiled and run by exactly nobody
Tue Nov 08 13:09:42 UTC 2016 <punkman> and there's a whole queue of ether huffers waiting for segwit to enable their shit
Tue Nov 08 13:07:02 UTC 2016 <adlai> let's put it this way, p2sh security degrading into "find a preimage collision and bribe a miner" loosens up about as much psychic supply as a suspected satoshicoin moving
Tue Nov 08 13:05:47 UTC 2016 <kakobrekla> given only a small fraction of coin is actuall circulating
Tue Nov 08 12:51:30 UTC 2016 <punkman> I'd definitely applaud a fork to http://log.bitcoin-assets.com//?date=07-10-2016#1455919
Tue Nov 08 12:35:41 UTC 2016 <punkman> to conclude that part: there are plenty of p2sh transactions in current blockchain. these carry signatures, which trb has not verified, but *could* verify them, given a small patch. p2sh-segwit transactions won't carry the signatures, and you'll have to swallow the rest of the spitoon to grab the sigs and verify them.
Tue Nov 08 10:23:05 UTC 2016 <assbot> Logged on 27-10-2016 20:40:25; adlai: kakobrekla: p2sh output is, in english, "does the hash of data pushed by the input equal this given preimage?"; p2sh input is the preimage, which, to be validated by P-rb, must also be a valid script; T-rb doesn't care that it's a valid script, just that it's a valid preimage.
Tue Nov 08 08:16:15 UTC 2016 <punkman> a relevant bit: "To support upgrade warnings, an extra "unknown upgrade" is tracked, using the "implicit bit" mask = (block.nVersion & ~expectedVersion) != 0. Mask will be non-zero whenever an unexpected bit is set in nVersion. Whenever LOCKED_IN for the unknown upgrade is detected, the software should warn loudly about the upcoming soft fork. It should warn even more loudly after the next
Tue Nov 08 08:15:14 UTC 2016 <punkman> so between 15/11/2016 and 15/11/2017, if you see 1916 blocks (95% of a sequence of 2016 blocks) with segwit versionbit set, nodes will "lock-in" and will start enforcing segwit rules after an additional 2016 block period. as I understand, 95% is not required after lock-in (or after activation).