Jeremy Rand
They're the same bugfixes that we already backported to `22.x` from `master`. I'm hesitant to tag from 22.x directly since that contains upstream Bitcoin commits that aren't part of a...
@domob1812 Does this proposal sound reasonable? @yanmaani Is this something you might be up for implementing?
@yanmaani Trying to use any kind of statistical model seems like over-engineering. Are there any real-world use cases where users really want to know what the nth percentile date will...
> You could display the 95% CI, or just round it based on how good data you have: 1970-01-01 00:00:00
Given that @domob1812 already ACKed this, I'm inclined to begin implementation. I think it's pretty clear that `name_show` consumers (e.g. the Namecoin-Qt GUI) are likely to want this field (at...
FWIW I'm not specifically advocating this feature; the "sweep" alternative seems reasonable to me; I'm just relaying this from https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin-core/issues/529#issuecomment-1373829008 since the discussion belongs in its own issue, not cluttering...
> FWIW I'm not specifically advocating this feature; the "sweep" alternative seems reasonable to me. Pondered it more and I now think sweeping private keys is not a reasonable approach,...
@domob1812 Hmm, is it possible that we could get that patch merged to upstream univalue? The intention of the lint check for this is to make it easier to audit...
@phelixbtc This should not be closed until the softfork is merged. (As far as I know it is not merged yet.)
@phelixbtc @indolering It is my opinion that issues should not be closed until they are resolved in the master branch. This is consistent with standard policy for open-source projects, and...