User talk:Luke-jr: Difference between revisions
→Undid/revision of yours in Address: new section |
|||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
* I haven't made any edits to Litecoin recently. I'm not familiar with Terracoin. --[[User:Luke-jr|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr|talk]]) 01:40, 20 December 2012 (GMT) | * I haven't made any edits to Litecoin recently. I'm not familiar with Terracoin. --[[User:Luke-jr|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr|talk]]) 01:40, 20 December 2012 (GMT) | ||
== Undid/revision of yours in [[Address]] == | |||
Hi | |||
I cite from the log-file of article address: | |||
''# (cur | prev) 2013-01-02T23:23:14 Luke-jr (Talk | contribs) . . (6,151 bytes) (-125) . . (Undo revision 34431 by Smtp (talk): This does not apply to newer addresses, and is already covered in the details that follow) (undo) | |||
# (cur | prev) 2013-01-02T20:46:58 Smtp (Talk | contribs) . . (6,276 bytes) (+125) . . (bitcoin address is a encoded hashvalue of a public key!) (undo)''. | |||
Sorry, where is this ''This does not apply to newer addresses, and is already covered in the details that follow'' mentioned in the article? | |||
smtp |
Revision as of 20:13, 5 January 2013
Reverted your edit on Alt-chain release RFC
I think your edit is anti-competitive, and is against the spirit in which I drafted the RFC. You can write a paragraph that encourages working within the boundaries of Bitcoin, but it must accept the possibility of deciding to create a real, competing alt coin. I also disapprove of you deleting the exchanges section.
Ripper234 (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2012 (GMT)
Your recent edits on litecoin are interesting lukeJnr. I'm concerned that you consider litecoin a threat to bitcoin rather than something which improves the overall system of electronic payments. The biggest threat to bitcoin as a network is actually terracoin.
- I haven't made any edits to Litecoin recently. I'm not familiar with Terracoin. --Luke-jr (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2012 (GMT)
Undid/revision of yours in Address
Hi
I cite from the log-file of article address:
# (cur | prev) 2013-01-02T23:23:14 Luke-jr (Talk | contribs) . . (6,151 bytes) (-125) . . (Undo revision 34431 by Smtp (talk): This does not apply to newer addresses, and is already covered in the details that follow) (undo) # (cur | prev) 2013-01-02T20:46:58 Smtp (Talk | contribs) . . (6,276 bytes) (+125) . . (bitcoin address is a encoded hashvalue of a public key!) (undo).
Sorry, where is this This does not apply to newer addresses, and is already covered in the details that follow mentioned in the article?
smtp