Search found 255 matches
- Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:46 pm
- Forum: Project direction
- Topic: Rebasing namecoin on bitcoin 0.8
- Replies: 33
- Views: 23796
Re: Rebasing namecoin on bitcoin 0.8
Ok, here's the pull request https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin/pull/30 It is in doublec's repo, branch "add-namecoin-qt". https://github.com/doublec/namecoin/tree/add-namecoin-qt I strongly suggest that khal now merges this ASAP and devs start using/testing this as much as possible ... and we reb...
- Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:41 am
- Forum: Project direction
- Topic: Rebasing namecoin on bitcoin 0.8
- Replies: 33
- Views: 23796
Re: Rebasing namecoin on bitcoin 0.8
Ok, here's the pull request https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin/pull/30 It is in doublec's repo, branch "add-namecoin-qt". https://github.com/doublec/namecoin/tree/add-namecoin-qt I strongly suggest that khal now merges this ASAP and devs start using/testing this as much as possible ... and we reba...
- Mon Sep 30, 2013 10:21 pm
- Forum: Project direction
- Topic: Rebasing namecoin on bitcoin 0.8
- Replies: 33
- Views: 23796
Re: Rebasing namecoin on bitcoin 0.8
Just so everyone is aware today doublec and I are going to be trying to rebase the latest namecoin-qt branch (0.3.70) on top of the current (0.3.51) namecoin in the main namecoin/namecoin github. So if khal will accept that commit and merge it then people can carry on with rebasing the what will be ...
- Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:16 am
- Forum: Project direction
- Topic: What next? [Namecoin Roadmap]
- Replies: 38
- Views: 135958
Re: What next?
Everytime you add new code it gets more and more difficult to rebase ... (I've said all this before). If you are wanting to create a new fork that is going to go off and doing its own thing then keep going in this direction, but you should be honest with yourselves that this is what you are doing .....
- Mon Sep 23, 2013 11:08 pm
- Forum: Project direction
- Topic: New size of the value field
- Replies: 42
- Views: 30376
Re: New size of the value field
e.g. rebasing on bitcoin is one big reason.jdbtracker wrote:what are the problems, what needs to be fixed in your opinion?moa wrote:We have bigger problems than going off on a tangent with value field size changes .... e.g. rebasing on bitcoin is one big reason.
- Mon Sep 23, 2013 10:58 pm
- Forum: Project direction
- Topic: Testnet
- Replies: 3
- Views: 3374
Re: Testnet
Yes, it sounds like the testnet needs difficulty resetting.
- Mon Sep 23, 2013 10:57 pm
- Forum: Project direction
- Topic: New size of the value field
- Replies: 42
- Views: 30376
Re: New size of the value field
We have bigger problems than going off on a tangent with value field size changes .... e.g. rebasing on bitcoin is one big reason.
- Mon Sep 23, 2013 10:56 pm
- Forum: Project direction
- Topic: What next? [Namecoin Roadmap]
- Replies: 38
- Views: 135958
Re: What next?
What next?!
Upgrade/rebase on bitcoin isn't enough for you already?
Upgrade/rebase on bitcoin isn't enough for you already?
- Sun Sep 15, 2013 12:35 am
- Forum: Project direction
- Topic: [Proposal] Changes to TLS spec + Enforcement of TLS for http
- Replies: 21
- Views: 29308
Re: [Proposal] Changes to TLS spec + Enforcement of TLS for
Excellent idea. Following the DANE spec will also allow easy comparison between DNSSEC and NMCSEC wherever it gets implemented in other external applications (e.g. gnutls, etc)
... and obviously no need to re-invent the wheel.
Good work.
... and obviously no need to re-invent the wheel.
Good work.
- Sun Sep 08, 2013 5:35 am
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: [3 BTC Bounty] TLS Support for .bit Domains
- Replies: 73
- Views: 57629
Re: [3 BTC Bounty] TLS Support for .bit Domains
http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/23648/what-alternatives-are-there-to-the-existing-certificate-authority-system-for-ssl "what-alternatives-are-there-to-the-existing-certificate-authority-system-for-ssl" Security stack exchange. Given recent revelations about NSA/GCHQ illegal spying and h...