-
List of tests, and a brief description of why/difficulty of re-activation if not already activated:
- [ ] abandonconflict.py - Makes assumptions about fee values, CT values break this. Swapping out…
-
Unlike bitcoin, achieving scalability with forward blocks on tradecraft will require an eventual hard-fork. Thankfully however, forward blocks presents the ideal opportunity for deploying such a thing…
maaku updated
5 years ago
-
Now that https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin-core/issues/241 is fixed, we can move onto SegWit. AFAICT from looking at BIP-141, there are only a couple edge cases that look interesting to me (and I …
-
This can be reproduced by adding a bitcoind (v0.16+) peer to a libbitcoin-server instance on regtest.
As soon as libbitcoin-server attempts to index a block received through the bitcoind instance,…
-
I got error when I run `test_runner.py`
```bash
$ ./test/functional/test_runner.py
Temporary test directory at /tmp/litecoin_test_runner_20190219_033151
feature_block.py failed, Duration: 0 s…
-
I am trying to use libbitcoin and libbitcoin-server in a regtest network, and am having trouble connecting libbitcoin-server to an established regtest network of bitcoind instances (versions 0.12.0 …
-
I tried to sync this implementation with the --btc and --db-cache=24000 parameters.
Everything was going fine until I got to the SegWit activation block at height 481824. Then parity spit out:
>…
jlopp updated
6 years ago
-
Hi @forrestv,
I'm doing some tests on p2pool "solo" mining so I can make it work for other altcoins... to start a new sharechain...
I'm testing it with litecoin for now and I get this error everyt…
-
Add segwit with activation on future block with spork switch, will need protocol version update for wallet release.
-
Between #3059 and #3063, we will have the ability to use Sapling addresses in transactions. This ticket is about making that the default shielded address type that users will encounter (instead of Spr…
str4d updated
5 years ago