Tree: 1c879abccd

2015_12_bip1

20160201_status_updates_d2f

20170314-comments

master

patch-1

patch-2

staging

Branches Tags

${ item.name }

Create tag ${ searchTerm }

Create branch ${ searchTerm }

from '1c879abccd'

${ noResults }

Commit Graph

642 Commits (1c879abccd4308006a565bc26d0ee58d13b6541a)

 

All Branches   

Search

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Luke Dashjr	1c879abccd	Assign BIP 142	9 years ago
Johnson Lau	c2d3488c02	Update for new witness prog design & formatting	9 years ago
Johnson Lau	93cedfbf2d	New proposal with 2 address types	9 years ago
Johnson Lau	09192275ac	Create bip-segwitaddress.mediawiki	9 years ago
Luke-Jr	6bfc0151a7	Merge pull request #260 from btcdrak/bip68mtp BIP68: update specification to assume MTP	9 years ago
Luke-Jr	99effc1c70	Merge pull request #254 from jl2012/patch-6 Full description of the behavior of OP_CLTV	9 years ago
BtcDrak	df9d34d537	Update deployment specification BIP68 must be deployed with BIP113 because MTP calculations are used by this BIP.	9 years ago
BtcDrak	7239c330c7	BIP68 now assume MTP in all instances	9 years ago
jl2012	abc7ae83a0	Update bip-0065.mediawiki the nLockTime feature may still be active as other inputs may not be final	9 years ago
Wladimir J. van der Laan	84779aa5c3	Merge pull request #258 from petertodd/bip65-fix-spec-missing-case BIP65 formatting fixes	9 years ago
Luke-Jr	44f021979a	Merge pull request #252 from jl2012/patch-5 Corrections with the conditions for script failure	9 years ago
jl2012	004be2e822	Update bip-0065.mediawiki	9 years ago
Peter Todd	7cd2a7bdbb	Fix missing case statement at beginning of specification Wasn't being displayed on github; adding an empty line prior to the spec seems to fix this.	9 years ago
Peter Todd	0feb1209d0	Remove space in BIP66 Seems to be how people are writing BIP's these days.	9 years ago
Peter Todd	aa7cbf77a6	Minor: fix capitalisation	9 years ago
Wladimir J. van der Laan	9d3b68f8c4	Merge pull request #256 from techstoreclub/fix_bip0001_type BIP-0001 Should be labeled as "Process" Type	9 years ago
Andy Chase	6f0c335b18	BIP-0001 Should be labeled as "Process" Type Previously BIP-0001 listed in its header preamble that is was a "Standards Track" type proposal. This conflicts with both its own definition of "Standards Track" proposal as well as the type listed in PEP-0001 of which BIP-0001 is based on. Defitions of each type of proposal: A Standards Track BIP describes any change that affects most or all Bitcoin implementations. An Informational BIP describes a Bitcoin design issue, or provides general guidelines or information to the Bitcoin community, but does not propose a new feature. A Process BIP describes a process surrounding Bitcoin, or proposes a change to (or an event in) a process. Specifically: "Any meta-BIP is also considered a Process BIP." Based on these definitions BIP-0001 should have always been labeled as a "Process" BIP and this patch corrects this.	9 years ago
Wladimir J. van der Laan	b1ae7bad0f	Merge pull request #255 from bitcoin/2015_12_bip1 Change BIP1 to status Active	9 years ago
Wladimir J. van der Laan	7576a135dd	Change BIP1 to status Active From the text: "Some Informational and Process BIPs may also have a status of "Active" if they are never meant to be completed. E.g. BIP 1 (this BIP)."	9 years ago
jl2012	71dd5c44e8	Full description of the behavior of the OP_CLTV	9 years ago
jl2012	ac4cd1d46c	Corrections with the conditions for script failure	9 years ago
Luke-Jr	0cd94c9f72	Merge pull request #245 from btcdrak/bip68sync BIP68: Simplify language and update for current implementation	9 years ago
BtcDrak	a8e0d0f4c7	Small fixup	9 years ago
Luke-Jr	0ce74af5e8	Merge pull request #249 from bitstein/master BIP47: fix typo	9 years ago
Luke-Jr	af7c75f40a	Merge pull request #238 from jwilkins/bip_103_squashed Bip 103 squashed	9 years ago
Luke-Jr	dd208025cd	Merge pull request #248 from btcdrak/bip112sync BIP112: Update document to match implementation	9 years ago
Luke-Jr	824284d422	Merge pull request #243 from CodeShark/BIP0112_revisions BIP-0112 minor revision to text.	9 years ago
BtcDrak	86d1358256	Update deployment to be TBD	9 years ago
BtcDrak	0026fcb929	Use optimised script examples Taken from 20/11/15 version of deployable lightning	9 years ago
BtcDrak	8d85335f2a	Fixup comment	9 years ago
BtcDrak	d30f1c6d0b	More clearly define script execution failure pathway	9 years ago
Michael Goldstein	565cc313a6	fix typo	9 years ago
BtcDrak	4048f45316	BIP112: Update document to match implementation	9 years ago
BtcDrak	8ad8cad875	Rename flags in code example to match implementation	9 years ago
BtcDrak	83fc19d97a	Improve title, add encoding diagram and small fixup	9 years ago
BtcDrak	f26cc0c4d3	Clarify (1 << 22) logic	9 years ago
BtcDrak	060c37f6d5	Add note about free bits and correct deployment recommendations	9 years ago
BtcDrak	c141645a1f	Update compatibility section	9 years ago
BtcDrak	7d7083f722	clarify specification further	9 years ago
BtcDrak	2bc1979601	Edits from kinoshitajona	9 years ago
BtcDrak	b5bc89a67c	BIP68: Simplify language and update for current implementation	9 years ago
Luke-Jr	641b91ba28	Merge pull request #244 from sipa/bip62dead Mark BIP62 as withdrawn	9 years ago
Pieter Wuille	916142e742	Mark BIP62 as withdrawn All of BIP62's (including the only-new-transactions) are currently enforced as standardness rules, but it seems hard to push it further. Every new type of complex transaction may require new extra rules, and some important types of malleability cannot be addressed by it (for example, a single participant in a multisig spend creating a new signature with a different nonce). It seems wiser to pursue normalized txid or segregated witness-based solutions, which do solve this problem more fundamentally.	9 years ago
Eric Lombrozo	cc90614074	BIP-0112 minor revision to text.	9 years ago
Gregory Maxwell	989f276dcb	Merge pull request #195 from btcdrak/patch-3 BIP-0001: Updates	9 years ago
Jeff Garzik	d0cab0379a	Merge #241 from branch '2015-11-13-bip65-wording-fixes' of git://github.com/petertodd/bips	9 years ago
Peter Todd	5d0ae1caa3	Reword motivation section Previous wording was very confusing now that most people will associate payment channels with CLTV-based payment channels rather than Jeremy Spilman style payment channels.	9 years ago
Peter Todd	c912e616d3	Clearer wording	9 years ago
Peter Todd	abeaa1be10	Use the term "malleability" rather than "mutability"	9 years ago
Peter Todd	f6a5bf2c5e	Refer to "Payment Channels" rather than "Micro-Payment Channels" More generic terminology.	9 years ago