summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/80/497733c16097fe0b53cb94b5028ad0ad5fbbe2
blob: fae66205d1c06bcaff80b90d37b92c2ed6cf45a1 (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <jgarzik@exmulti.com>) id 1TJV0t-0005uf-T0
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:53:47 +0000
X-ACL-Warn: 
Received: from mail-qc0-f175.google.com ([209.85.216.175])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1TJV0s-0000Kl-Tm
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:53:47 +0000
Received: by qcsj3 with SMTP id j3so3862860qcs.34
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 03 Oct 2012 12:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=google.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date
	:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state;
	bh=leQGsM+K22P8p0q5jjgr+PlqRrjNGpfc9fGFTmAok+s=;
	b=WFK4FU1epghql9z25S0axN9/Y0hQzDjVpa79bc69UVBReb6MZwF6aZIsJcCCfWDMrc
	vQdyRfE4Hjhw5NrywX4zdJsIiJxRY+M4QP/cLF8ep14jeEOq+4AX5fiLvSjeIRN3zvpS
	Zltw9qRcZzPOJDTbUNu5xb/gWSQtPNbR+CUjy27F9tPS6MSbVUQ2P6M+8KVET+OpON0B
	6PL0wv/1JvHpCEoiLJ3kfE7wIG+8TnKngzjoSY0J1O3LLVOban/5zYW+V6+x/habNRnN
	NMyRw1dpfNhaeAYemBx+rlDdYVcleCFHt9eyR1aAwEZSPbvdBrC69g/6NegoyH9R9N1G
	HslQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.49.87.230 with SMTP id bb6mr14241841qeb.18.1349294021284; Wed,
	03 Oct 2012 12:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.97.6 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 12:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:4830:1603:2:21c:c0ff:fe79:c8c2]
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T1v9Rfm_d7DcfbkkHEC96CwTNNp4_E1G97UBXqVHjVyOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T1v9Rfm_d7DcfbkkHEC96CwTNNp4_E1G97UBXqVHjVyOw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 15:53:41 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+8xBpeRsOa_7rLfziyd7Gd79o9d5QPyc1-cWwZ36f8HNDjKdw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkQwWC7rMfne3TvKe1V2uUO0RBmMS5NhGPtRUbVyahj1I/MEs1PyNiukrBj6gumTJOb9B3k
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1TJV0s-0000Kl-Tm
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.7.1 release
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:53:48 -0000

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Add -reindex, to perform in-place reindexing of blockchain data
> files" : https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1870

Agree, though needs testing

> "P2P: Do not request blocks from peers with fewer blocks than us" :
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1834

Agree

> "Add new RPC "lockunspent", to prevent spending of selected outputs" :
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1861

Agree, though sipa raised a valid issue.  lockunspent, like the
existing listunspent, is wallet based.

As raw transactions might spend outputs _not_ in the wallet,
lockunspent would miss those.

I think this is OK, because listunspent is already wallet-based, but
it should be noted.

-- 
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik@exmulti.com