Search found 948 matches

by domob
Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:36 pm
Forum: Project direction
Topic: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
Replies: 44
Views: 13086

Re: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9

Quote from IRC earlier today, which may be of interest. <qpm> freenode:<btcdrak> qpm: plddr: the first BIP9 deployments are scheduled pretty soon https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-March/012567.html - while the starttime is set to May 1st, code will be released before. And...
by domob
Sat Mar 19, 2016 9:45 am
Forum: Project direction
Topic: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
Replies: 44
Views: 13086

Re: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9

Bitcoin merged BIP9 last week - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/73b7eb501e6498e911321131e58ae7fbec6bc5ed. Miners will start to set the corresponding high bit in nVersion as soon as they upgrade (no activation time), but that's not an immediate problem for us as far as I can tell. Neverthel...
by domob
Sun Mar 13, 2016 5:52 pm
Forum: Project direction
Topic: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
Replies: 44
Views: 13086

Re: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9

I've now started to implement the actual fork logic on https://github.com/domob1812/namecore/tree/hardfork. The first commit there adds the fork discussed here, but still missing proper testing code.
by domob
Wed Mar 09, 2016 6:46 pm
Forum: Project direction
Topic: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
Replies: 44
Views: 13086

Re: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9

it's a nice read, my opinion is that maybe the code that change the merged mining process could be added with similar rules. Just test them on testnet, add them to BIP9. Once most testnet users update we can check the effects. Yes you could deploy 0.12 but then you need another release. Instead you...
by domob
Tue Mar 01, 2016 5:00 pm
Forum: Tools, GUI & other softwares
Topic: Module Request: Keep a Namespace in Sync
Replies: 21
Views: 5999

Re: Module Request: Keep a Namespace in Sync

hla wrote:That makes no sense. The patch only exports name data. It's useless for a blockchain without names.
This is true, but it would be useful for UTXO's, for instance.
by domob
Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:39 pm
Forum: Official Namecoin softwares
Topic: Namecoin 0.12
Replies: 4
Views: 2296

Namecoin 0.12

Since Bitcoin just released the official 0.12.0, I've tagged another Namecoin release: https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin-core/releases/tag/nc0.12.0rc2 This is directly based off the final Bitcoin 0.12.0. If you can, please test and give feedback. When there seem to be no issues, we can also relea...
by domob
Sun Feb 21, 2016 9:26 am
Forum: General Discussion
Topic: QT UI Pull Request
Replies: 1
Views: 1128

Re: QT UI Pull Request

Thanks a lot, great! I will try to give it a review as soon as I find time - but I'm also looking forward to getting the feedback (and testing) of others, of course. :)
by domob
Fri Feb 19, 2016 6:01 pm
Forum: General Discussion
Topic: Namecoin QT GUI Questions
Replies: 14
Views: 4258

Re: Namecoin QT GUI Questions

A brief comment from my side: If the code in question is not directly GUI-related (e. g., depending on Qt) but does general wallet handling, I see no big deal in adding the functions always even if they are then only used from the GUI. In respect to the pending firstupdates, for instance, those coul...
by domob
Tue Feb 16, 2016 4:53 pm
Forum: Project direction
Topic: Hardfork Wishlist
Replies: 15
Views: 4509

Re: Hardfork Wishlist

Another thing we should do: Get rid of using nVersion of transactions for determining whether a tx is a name operation or not. BIP68 will change the nVersion of transactions, which will (somewhat) break this. Should we use one of the bits in nVersion as a flag instead? Is there any reason why we can...