Right, now it should be ok. Thanks. On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Jorge Timón wrote: > I can always link to the BIP when I reopen that commit as independent > instead of the other way around. > Btw, the PR needs rebase (probably the conflict is in the README). > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:10 PM, Marco Pontello > wrote: > > OK, adding the relevant code fragment is probably the simplest and direct > > option. Done. > > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Jorge Timón wrote: > >> > >> Not a native english speaker myself, so I may have missed some things... > >> > >> Yes, sorry about the link. I guess you can point to #6230 . I can > >> rebase it if needed but I would close it again because I don't want to > >> have too many things from #6382 opened at the same time (is noisy and > >> worse for review). My plan was to not open it independently at least > >> until after #6907 (and actually after 0.12 assuming #6907 gets in by > >> 0.12). But then I would maybe open a new one and reference the old one > >> rather than reopening #6230 (which tends to be confusing). > >> I'm not really sure what's the best answer here...but #6382 is > >> certainly going to need rebase and the link will be broken again. > >> Maybe one answer is to copy some text from #6230 or the commit and add > >> it directly to the BIP instead of referencing to that commit (which > >> will be, at least until #6907 is merged, a moving target). > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Marco Pontello > >> wrote: > >> > Thanks for the comments! Now I fixed the typos (hope to have got them > >> > all, > >> > English isn't my first language), clarified the chain part a bit, and > >> > fixed > >> > the link. There probably is a better way to reference that source code > >> > part > >> > with the genesis blocks hashs, in a way that doesn't need to be > changed, > >> > maybe... > >> > > >> > Now the main change would be to put in a proper BIP number! :) > >> > > >> > On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Jorge Timón > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Thank you for incorporating the feedback, specifically thank you for > >> >> using the genesis block hash as the unique chain ID. > >> >> > >> >> I wen't through the BIP draft and left a few of comments, but I > really > >> >> like its simplicity and focus. Good work! > >> >> > >> >> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Marco Pontello via bitcoin-dev > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > Hi! > >> >> > > >> >> > To anyone that followed the discussion (from some time ago) about > the > >> >> > proposed new URI for Blockchain references / exploration, I just > >> >> > wanted > >> >> > to > >> >> > point out that I have collected the feedback provided, reworked the > >> >> > text, > >> >> > put the BIP on GitHub and created a pull request: > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > https://github.com/MarcoPon/bips/blob/master/bip-MarcoPon-01.mediawiki > >> >> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/202 > >> >> > > >> >> > The need for an URI for this come to mind again in the last days > >> >> > looking > >> >> > at > >> >> > Eternity Wall, which IMHO provide a use case that we will see more > >> >> > and > >> >> > more > >> >> > in the (near) future: http://eternitywall.it/ > >> >> > Using that service, when you want to check for the proof that a > >> >> > specific > >> >> > message was written in the Blockchain, it let you choose from 5 > >> >> > different > >> >> > explorer. > >> >> > Mycelium wallet recently added the option to select one of 15 block > >> >> > explorers. > >> >> > And there's the crypto_bot on reddit/r/bitcoin that detect > reference > >> >> > to > >> >> > transaction an add a message with links to 7 different explorers. > >> >> > > >> >> > I think that's clearly something that's needed. > >> >> > > >> >> > Bye! > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Marco Pontello < > marcopon@gmail.com> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Hi! > >> >> >> My first post here, hope I'm following the right conventions. > >> >> >> I had this humble idea for a while, so I thought to go ahead and > >> >> >> propose > >> >> >> it. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> BIP: XX > >> >> >> Title: URI scheme for Blockchain exploration > >> >> >> Author: Marco Pontello > >> >> >> Status: Draft > >> >> >> Type: Standards Track > >> >> >> Created: 29 August 2015 > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Abstract > >> >> >> ======== > >> >> >> This BIP propose a simple URI scheme for looking up blocks, > >> >> >> transactions, > >> >> >> addresses on a Blockchain explorer. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Motivation > >> >> >> ========== > >> >> >> The purpose of this URI scheme is to enable users to handle all > the > >> >> >> requests for details about blocks, transactions, etc. with their > >> >> >> preferred > >> >> >> tool (being that a web service or a local application). > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Currently a Bitcoin client usually point to an arbitrary > blockchain > >> >> >> explorer when the user look for the details of a transaction (es. > >> >> >> Bitcoin > >> >> >> Wallet use BitEasy, Mycelium or Electrum use Blockchain.info, > etc.). > >> >> >> Other times resorting to cut&paste is needed. > >> >> >> The same happens with posts and messages that reference some > >> >> >> particular > >> >> >> txs or blocks, if they provide links at all. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Specification > >> >> >> ============= > >> >> >> The URI follow this simple form: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> blockchain: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Examples: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > blockchain:00000000000000001003e880d500968d51157f210c632e08a652af3576600198 > >> >> >> blockchain:001949 > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > blockchain:3b95a766d7a99b87188d6875c8484cb2b310b78459b7816d4dfc3f0f7e04281a > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Rationale > >> >> >> ========= > >> >> >> I thought about using some more complex scheme, or adding > qualifiers > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> distinguish blocks from txs, but in the end I think that keeping > it > >> >> >> simple > >> >> >> should be practical enough. Blockchain explorers can apply the > same > >> >> >> disambiguation rules they are already using to process the usual > >> >> >> search > >> >> >> box. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> From the point of view of a wallet developer (or other tool that > >> >> >> need > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> show any kind of Blockchain references), using this scheme mean > that > >> >> >> he > >> >> >> can simply make it a blockchain: link and be done with it, without > >> >> >> having > >> >> >> to worry about any specific Blockchain explorer or provide a means > >> >> >> for > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> user to select one. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Blockchain explorers in turn will simply offer to handle the > >> >> >> blockchain: > >> >> >> URI, the first time the user visit their website, or > launch/install > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> application, or even set themselves if there isn't already one. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Users get the convenience of using always their preferred > explorer, > >> >> >> which > >> >> >> can be especially handy on mobile devices, where juggling with > >> >> >> cut&paste > >> >> >> is far from ideal. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > Try the Online TrID File Identifier > >> >> > http://mark0.net/onlinetrid.aspx > >> >> > > >> >> > _______________________________________________ > >> >> > bitcoin-dev mailing list > >> >> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > >> >> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Try the Online TrID File Identifier > >> > http://mark0.net/onlinetrid.aspx > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Try the Online TrID File Identifier > > http://mark0.net/onlinetrid.aspx > -- Try the Online TrID File Identifier http://mark0.net/onlinetrid.aspx