[…] Let’s assume for a minute we have another block chain which contains just domain data which is cryptographically hashed, but may or may not have proof of work (let’s ignore that for now, which I’ll address below).  The purpose of the block chain is for the authentication of the […]

Read more

Quote from: davout on December 09, 2010, 21:08:55 Just wondering about the following example : I broadcast a transaction, sending X coins to some address. Doesn’t get included in blocks for a while because I don’t include a fee. Do I have a way to cancel it and broadcast it […]

Read more

Quote from: nanotube on December 09, 2010, 21:20:40 seems that the miner would have to basically do “extra work”. and if there’s no reward from the bitdns mining from the extra work (which of course, slows down the main bitcoin work), what would be a miner’s incentive to include bitdns […]

Read more

This is based on a discussion on 11/14/2010 on the IRC channel. BitDNS Although there have been attempts to tackle DNS in a distributed way in the past, I don’t think there have been solutions that have fully removed authority from the equation. If there was such a solution, it […]

Read more

I finally managed to get the openSuse Build Service (OBS) to build working nightly packages of bitcoind (the client without the wx GUI). openSuse and SLE will follow soon. To install the Ubuntu packages add the following line to your /etc/apt/sources.list: Code: deb http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/cdecker/xUbuntu_10.04/ ./ Next update: Code: sudo aptitude […]

Read more

Quote from: jgarzik on December 09, 2010, 00:58:05 I agree with you and satoshi about “txs after <txid>”. My listtransactions (now xlisttransactions) patch pointedly does not have that feature, and never has. As long as the interface is designed for things like showing the user the last N transactions history, […]

Read more

Several months ago, around the time when the 0.3.9 bugs were found, I privately told Satoshi that I thought whitelisting acceptable transaction types was a better way to go, rather than blacklisting transaction types that we find out cause problems. The danger is similar websites that try to blacklist <script> […]

Read more

This is the first update to Bitcion that I’m not jumping on and grabbing right away, because I think the choice of checking transaction types in blocks is not necessarily a good thing… at least while the question is undecided in the community.  It does impact the network but in […]

Read more

I’m not talking about the normal risk for a given minconf level, I’m talking about additional pitfalls from listtransactions when used this way. Quote from: satoshi on December 08, 2010, 22:36:45 2) When there’s a block-chain reorg, it would be easy to double-count transactions when they get confirmed again. The […]

Read more

Changes: – Fixed a wallet.dat compatibility problem if you downgraded from 0.3.17 and then upgraded again – IsStandard() check to only include known transaction types in blocks – Jgarzik’s optimisation to speed up the initial block download a little The main addition in this release is the Accounts-Based JSON-RPC commands […]

Read more