Search found 952 matches
- Fri Apr 29, 2016 5:02 pm
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: ATTN: Jekyll being deployed in 1 week unless NACKs received
- Replies: 1
- Views: 3658
Re: ATTN: Jekyll being deployed in 1 week unless NACKs recei
ACK from me, but I've only taken a very brief look.
- Fri Apr 01, 2016 4:06 pm
- Forum: Identity / NamecoinID
- Topic: NameID down?
- Replies: 1
- Views: 46878
Re: NameID down?
It was, back up. Nothing to worry about, the server just failed to restart due to a misconfiguration after the hoster restarted the VPS.
- Tue Mar 29, 2016 3:58 pm
- Forum: Project direction
- Topic: Hardfork Wishlist
- Replies: 15
- Views: 86955
Re: Hardfork Wishlist
So how about consensus for increasing the domain registration length to 1 year? and the size to 1kb? Does anyone still oppose that ? It's a compromise... I (weakly) oppose those changes, as I think we should only do completely uncontroversial changes in this "kind-of-emergency" hard fork. Political...
- Sat Mar 26, 2016 7:37 am
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: Negative balance on default account
- Replies: 1
- Views: 4789
Re: Negative balance on default account
I do not know exactly how accounting is handled for name transactions, but if you want to fix that, just use "namecoind move JZA '' 0.03787348".
- Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:36 pm
- Forum: Project direction
- Topic: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
- Replies: 44
- Views: 144011
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...
- Sun Mar 20, 2016 4:59 pm
- Forum: Project direction
- Topic: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
- Replies: 44
- Views: 144011
- Sat Mar 19, 2016 9:45 am
- Forum: Project direction
- Topic: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
- Replies: 44
- Views: 144011
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...
- Sun Mar 13, 2016 5:52 pm
- Forum: Project direction
- Topic: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
- Replies: 44
- Views: 144011
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.
- Wed Mar 09, 2016 6:46 pm
- Forum: Project direction
- Topic: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
- Replies: 44
- Views: 144011
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...
- Tue Mar 01, 2016 5:00 pm
- Forum: Tools, GUI & other softwares
- Topic: Module Request: Keep a Namespace in Sync
- Replies: 21
- Views: 98425
Re: Module Request: Keep a Namespace in Sync
This is true, but it would be useful for UTXO's, for instance.hla wrote:That makes no sense. The patch only exports name data. It's useless for a blockchain without names.