User talk:Luke-jr

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.

--laSeek (talk)

• 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

• Newer (version 5) addresses do not always represent a public key, and even when they do, don't contain the hash of that key itself. --Luke-jr (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2013 (GMT)
• Aha ... "always" was the critical word. I did not know. This "address" is also not very well defined. :) But are these common named "bitcoin addresses" in more than 99.9 % of the txouts (of current usage) still RIPEMD-160 hashs of public keys, or I'm wrong? Smtp (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2013 (GMT)
• The newer addresses are defined in BIP 0013. --Luke-jr (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2013 (GMT)

bitcoind release history

A different point: in the article Bitcoind in the release history table, I just have deleted your "source" entry in the colum platform. You should write there the supported OS and still better give a reference for this release as a URL. :) Thx, smtp Smtp (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2013 (GMT)

• • Many of the stable/backport releases exist only as tags or win32+source code tarballs. Just putting win32 in the latter cases suggests Linux isn't supported, when in fact you only need to build the binaries yourself. --Luke-jr (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2013 (GMT)

• • • Okay .. the supported platforms are Win32 & Linux? MaxOS X also? Why did you not put this info there in? When I filled the other columns entries with Win32/Linux/MaxOsX I did not say anything about source or binary or both because I did not check it. But this will not be indicated by this column. So what is your problem? Please give a valid reference then the user can check your claim resp. see how the OS is supported by this release. This should be easily possible for you, I think, because all these releases are at most a year old and your a a developper I guess. :) BTW: Of course you are free to open a further column in the table to distinguish between binary and source if you like. Smtp (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2013 (GMT)

• • • • Supported platforms are all 3, but binaries are only provided for some of them for stable/backport releases. If the OS lists are for actual functioning support, then it is the same for all versions - so why list it per-version at all? I was thinking it was to signify binary availability. I used as my source my primary mirror of bitcoind builds, which is also the main distribution location for most stable/backport binaries since they get less attention than the 3-signature requirement we impose on SourceForge files. --Luke-jr (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2013 (GMT)
        • I don't know why having a platform column in the table. Ask the guy who created this table (column). Not the only exception to platforms are the releases <= 0.2 versions. Indeed these 0.3.x versions have no MacOS release which are not indicated MacOSX (I checked it, when updating the table). BTW: Our personal discussion/information exchange is not of any help for a reader of the table! Smtp (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2013 (GMT)
        • BTW: I don't know when Linux64 and whether (and if, when) Windows64 platforms are supported. I did not check the sources for 64-capabilities. Smtp (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2013 (GMT)