|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Special:Contributions/Akemashite
| |
| phishing for logins:
| |
|
| |
|
| correct link www.bitcoinfog.com not www.bitcoinfog.info {{unsigned|Dull}}
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| == 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.
| |
|
| |
| [[User:Ripper234|Ripper234]] ([[User talk: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.
| |
|
| |
| --[[User:laSeek|laSeek]] ([[User talk:laSeek|talk]])
| |
|
| |
| * 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
| |
|
| |
| * 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. --[[User:Luke-jr|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Smtp|Smtp]] ([[User talk:Smtp|talk]]) 11:07, 6 January 2013 (GMT)
| |
| * The newer addresses are defined in [[BIP 0013]]. --[[User:Luke-jr|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Smtp|Smtp]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Luke-jr|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Smtp|Smtp]] ([[User talk: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 [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/bitcoind/ 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. --[[User:Luke-jr|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk: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! [[User:Smtp|Smtp]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Smtp|Smtp]] ([[User talk:Smtp|talk]]) 20:04, 7 January 2013 (GMT)
| |
|
| |
| == ref links ==
| |
|
| |
| i just did that because most of the other websites on the list had ref links as well {{Unsigned|Zimmah}}
| |