Yes, it's a killer feature for BCH.
CashPay & Ari want an on-chain naming solution for SV. The downside of on-chain naming schemes is it forces address re-use, unless we decide to commit master public keys to the chain.
| First |
0 votes
(0 unique)
· 0 satoshis
|
| Second |
0 votes
(0 unique)
· 0 satoshis
|
| Third |
0 votes
(0 unique)
· 0 satoshis
|
| Fourth |
0 votes
(0 unique)
· 0 satoshis
|
Creating...
Broadcasting...
Do polls support images?
| Yes |
0 votes
· 0 satoshis
|
| No |
0 votes
· 0 satoshis
|
Creating...
Broadcasting...
I tried to report the issues to Ryan X. Charles on Twitter. Not sure why they'd want to lose the traction they had, but obviously they've shifted all resources to Money Button.
I did
http://handcash.to/$derekm to make my HandCash handle more usable. The site gives your address QR code & URI. QR code is address-only. Should I change QR to a URI to have "?label=$derekm"?
Coming soon...
Can I upload my master public key so you can hand out rotating wallet addresses on my profile page according to some SPV standard and unused address gap limit?
BCH account identifier will looks like SuperHacker#123, Bob#465 and etc, better than hash strings.
For some reason you gotta click to turn on 0-1 in the BSV graph. Check the legend and click on 0-1!
it would seem to me that the developers are flagging feature set completion targets in development & release cycles with these changes in tx metrics
It looks like there have been three or more sets of test tx's that have been injected, got stuck and then were cleared since about Nov. 26th.
Maybe the graph has bugs calculating the total in its pop-over, but it shows 1,374 total tx down to 2 total tx...
I think the graph isn't showing tx's below 1? Notice the total count in the graph's pop-over, not the count it displays in the line graph.
It was like 1,000 obvious test transactions, and the tester has now cleared them. If I cared I could probably do the same on BCH.
These don't seem like problems. They seem like someone's metrics... Maybe the dust limit & fee limit changes are being tested with tx's installed months ago.
Things like this show tests you and I don't immediately understand or recognize. Why did these tx's get stuck & why did they get cleared & why are they identical to the tx's from the 65MB block?
In other words: The cleared tx's are identical to the ones in the supposed 65MB block.
There was yesterday, like I said before you did, it had unadvertised tx's. But obviously some of these txs (about 1,000) got advertised and cleared today. Why r u stuck shilling a cult modality?
At the time of the fork during a real stress test, BSV was much more efficient than ABC at producing large blocks & clearing the mempool. I'm curious about the lingering tx's that cleared today!
I heard the 65 MB block had unadvertised tx's with very low fees, so maybe those were tx's that had been forgotten / not-relayed by most miners? How fitting for Mempool.com to remember them all.
