Jude Nelson
> We should consider this topic together with the suggestion in stacks-network/stacks-blockchain#2926 which discusses storing a minified version of the contract. To be clear, stacks-network/stacks-blockchain#2926 refers to _compression_, not minification....
This would require a hard fork to implement. Per SIP-011, this does not meet the criteria for a hard fork. Also, I think this might be illegal -- I think...
I went ahead and wrote up a prototype stx-future contract here: https://github.com/jcnelson/stx-future
> What are the reasons to limit a principle to have a maximum of one address again? I believe there to be a good reason because prior to Stacks 1.0...
> This could help to avoid errors by typos and also allow for a user to hold more than one name. Probably I haven't understood the problem with the race-condition....
So, I'm not too fond of having to repeat myself. This issue has resurfaced before, and each time, we all come away with the understanding that 1-name-1-address is actually the...
I'm going to lock this thread for a couple days to give everyone a chance to do so.
Since this myth refuses to die, let me drive a stake into its heart right here, before I unlock the thread. > My intuition continues to tell me that the...
Okay, I'm unlocking this thread. Again, please revisit the earlier thread if you have not done so already. It sounds to me like there are two major asks in this...
> The irony here is if we had continued this conversation before the launch of Stacks 2.0, we could have perhaps avoided the issue you point out here that moving...