vikramrajkumar

_From @xeroc on December 14, 2015 21:34_ An alternative way to improve user experience would be to allow `proposal_create_operation` (and `proposal_update_operation`) with only partial active authority signatures .. Say `Alice`'s...

_From @theoreticalbts on December 15, 2015 16:56_ Your first comment is basically saying have the publisher of a proposal automatically approve it. Very early in the design of Graphene we...

_From @xeroc on December 15, 2015 17:50_ Having the approval in the same transaction is difficult to implement. I understand that. But what is the reason that I cannot take...

_From @theoreticalbts on December 15, 2015 18:22_ We discussed this issue during the design of Graphene. The justification for the current behavior was that a committee member might want a...

_From @theoreticalbts on December 15, 2015 18:26_ If this is implemented at all, it should either be by: - Generic backreferencing of ID's. It would then be up to each...

_From @xeroc on December 15, 2015 19:37_ > We discussed this issue during the design of Graphene. The justification for the current behavior was that a committee member might want...

_From @xeroc on January 20, 2016 9:39_ So .. thinking about the > don't support this idea, but I would like to put it up for a vote what prevents...

_From @theoreticalbts on February 4, 2016 22:27_ Also add to this: In a future patch, stop accepting the old operations some time after the new operations have been enabled and...

_From @theoreticalbts on February 5, 2016 17:55_ All existing fee parameters and chain parameters happen to be integers -- `uint`, `bool` or `share_type` -- and that seems likely for future...

_From @theoreticalbts on February 5, 2016 18:5_ The reason to do things as described in the above post is to have an unchanging serialization which doesn't require separate support for...