From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65F8C7A for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:44:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com (mail-wi0-f175.google.com [209.85.212.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCAA07D for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:44:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so49726050wic.1 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:44:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Wm8OgIzYvuqu8qvPcUgam8BmtLJ4kE+V6ovYipWmgw8=; b=Z4DWDfUMsCH+E9kIXTIwF5moa3JbrwxQ07Msvmc/l2f6szul9MbNSsXvs+vLRz+/Uu 90deVD/E3NG1UQ29ROa4ma+7VzxFZX5W/5UIQvwHpRutUBA/bWZr0yZUAO9aJFAStWqa wpNsJW49gfZpCNW96ryU7c4mMtPHwYF4n5PzIzYcf+0UTX1eFtMngTPpICdTAn9OCwRZ VAafOU5YWEqhdZeFDb3rPcRCcKodGrxuNKrP8ZwYFU1v1PYqyS34CpE1TW6amDMQ/wSY jYxLmwMRa7VPToZX909iQVDTgiWlU2erqlqnJjKQAcZip67JWgCtZx8q16R67wG/KOIc tSNQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkkbUK8HvE97G13L17x58j+fI9iVjaDR8ghZj/8G7PZ4EaGtd8bm8UpTiBT2kthaWNxuLcL MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.21.175 with SMTP id w15mr28603151wie.58.1439235883604; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:44:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:44:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201508101841.00173.luke@dashjr.org> References: <55C75FC8.6070807@jrn.me.uk> <201508092346.20301.luke@dashjr.org> <55C8EE2A.3030309@jrn.me.uk> <201508101841.00173.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 21:44:43 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Luke Dashjr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Alternative chain support for payment protocol X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:44:45 -0000 On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> > Genesis blocks are not necessarily unique. For example, Litecoin and >> > Feathercoin share the same one. That's a fatal design in Feathercoin, not a mistake all altchains have done and certainly irrelevant to Bitcoin. > Regtest isn't really a network at all, just a testing mode of Bitcoin Core... Regtest is a testchain just like testnet2 and testnet3. Testchains are the only reason why Bitcoin Core supports multiple chains using CChainParams. > Sorry, I meant to stress that BIPs are for *Bitcoin* improvements > specifically. Things which only improve altcoins, while a perfectly fine thing > to standardise, are outside the scope of what belongs in a BIP. > > Perhaps, however, this could be made to kill 2 birds with one stone, by > ensuring it addresses the need for payments made of bitcoins on a sidechain? > For this, a merchant who wants a sidechain payment would presumably be able to > provide a script from the main chain already, but an extension allowing > payment directly on the sidechain (at the customer's choice) avoids the need > to round-trip it... For the payment protocol testchains, sidechains and altcoins are all quite similar. But it is fine to just focus on testchains if sidechains and altcoins are out of scope.