1 2016-08-16 01:08:41 <roasbeef> one downside with that route is that it makes validation more computationally expensive as it now requires the computation of a sqrt over a finite field
 2 2016-08-16 01:09:29 <roasbeef> with possibly up to 4 attempts if one is extra unlucky
 3 2016-08-16 02:08:56 <achow101> it's mentioned in the thread I linked to that there could be an additional value for the index of the key
 4 2016-08-16 09:15:04 <wumpus> if it makes validation more expensive, it's a non-starter
 5 2016-08-16 09:20:53 <wumpus> sinetek: good catch, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8520
 6 2016-08-16 11:19:33 <rafalcpp> when taking bitcoin code to be used in other code, is it good idea to set git author to bitcoin for code commiting the code copy?  if yes then what email to use, of any devel?
 7 2016-08-16 12:44:06 <wumpus> I'm not sure, really. It's considered bad form to set someone as author without them actually contributing to the project, but with code that is copied I don't know...
 8 2016-08-16 12:44:44 <wumpus> imo it's good enough to mention in the source file a comment where it came from, and just commit as yourself
 9 2016-08-16 13:46:41 <rafalcpp> one good point is about git blame. How ever, using some faked bitcoin-....@yourdomain is works also. (though comment in code too, as git blame is not perfect e.g. across file rename)
10 2016-08-16 21:11:55 <nba_btchip> Luke-Jr quick note on the "one protocol to rule all hardware wallets thing" on the ML because I wasn't re-registered yet - won't work, the current popular Protobuf makes too many assumptions on the device RAM size, so the proxy is the best approach. I'll chime in more on the next messages.