This repository was archived by the owner on Jun 29, 2022. It is now read-only.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
bitcoin: add bitcoin docs (WIP) #270
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
bitcoin: add bitcoin docs (WIP) #270
Changes from 1 commit
206661a
7927851
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Technically, past ~2140, when everyone working on this is dead, this may no longer be true ;P
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do you mean that it's only true if people are transacting on Bitcoin and beyond ~2140 there may no longer be transactions? It's still going to be true as long as someone is mining Bitcoin because there's always a coinbase. There cannot exist a "bitcoin block graph" without at least one transaction!
I'm looking through Zcash right now and it's kind of sad how many coinbase-only transactions there are near the head. It makes it look like it now exists to be mined ...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This, together with the #int64 below, almost makes one want to say "ipld schema integers are of arbitrary precision", and leave it up to the codecs when to switch the wire-representation, and leave it to codecs when to use a language internal
bigint
and when to use a native integer.This has probably been discussed already, so feel free to ignore with no further discussion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This goes together with the endianness discussion above: being an integer and a string at the same time can't be a thing.