Hello,
In response to public and private comments and feedback, we have updated
this working draft.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBOUVtOHJQdlhvUmc/view?usp=sharing
Update highlights:
1. Specific clarifications on replacing the Coinbase subsidy and
supplementing *and* not
On Aug 21, 2015, at 21:46, Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com
mailto:ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote:
Every re-implementation, re-factoring even copy-paste introduces a risk of
disagreement,
but also open the chance of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 21 August 2015 20:21:22 GMT-07:00, Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc wrote:
Don't you mean profits instead of revenue?
Actually no. I thought revenue would be a less subjective question to ask, with
more focus on the underlying orphan rate
I am not sure that this is on-topic for the bitcoin-dev mailing list, but
it seems politically relevant enough that I'm going to respond.
/r/bitcoin and bitcointalk.org are both discussion websites that pertain to
a specific topic. All (or nearly all) discussion websites pertaining to a
specific
I've been pushing for greater modularization since I first got into
bitcoin. I got quickly frustrated when I was only able to get through very
few things (i.e. moving core structure serialization classes to a separate
unit not called main). Working on Bitcoin has an added layer of frustration
that
Hi,
As I understand the main problem of the fork Core-XT is possibility
of double spending:
-I run XT and spend my coins
-it is written in 8mb block
-Core does not accept this block
-I run Core and spend my coins again
-it is written in 1mb block
-but XT accepts this block too
so
-in the XT
One thing it occurs to me (and I don't know if this has been suggested
before) we could do is separate the BIP process into at several distinct
areas:
1) Commit structure changes/consensus rule change proposals
- Consensus-building process (how are proposals debated, improved, vetted,
and
