On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org wrote:
please not google groups *, I'd vote for sourceforge or other simple
open list software over google groups.
Please not sourceforge.
* Google lists are somehow a little proprietary or gmail lockin
focused eg it makes
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 8:17 AM, xor x...@freenetproject.org wrote:
I joined the list when Bitcoin was already in the 10-billions of market
capitalization, and it actually really surprised me how low the traffic is
here
given the importance of Bitcoin.
So as a random stranger to the
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Flavien Charlon
flavien.char...@coinprism.com wrote:
My main concern with OP_RETURN is that it seems to encourage people to
use the blockchain as a convenient transport channel
The number one user of the blockchain as a storage and transport mechanism
is
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Oliver Egginger bitc...@olivere.de wrote:
Sorry for the off-topic but while reading this I like to ask you for
picocoin, see:
https://github.com/jgarzik/picocoin
For a research project I'm looking for a C library to operate some block
chain analysis
This is a pretty good example about refactoring discipline as well as
premature/over optimisation.
We all want to see more modular code, but the first steps should just be to
relocate blocks of code so everything is more logically organised in
smaller files (especially for consensus critical
Would someone also clarify the use of nit for nitpicking and how it plays
in the role of consensus?
It seems like it's used for minor complaints/preferences.
Drak
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Wladimir laa...@gmail.com
Mike,
In all seriousness, are you on the payroll of the NSA or similar to
repeatedly attempt to introduce privacy leaks[1] and weaknesses[2] into the
ecosystem not to mention logical fallacies like ad hominem attacks;
disruption[3] and FUD[4]?
Why do you answer objections by hand waving and
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
Matt Corallo brought up¹ the issue of OP_NOP scarcity on the mempool
only CLTV pull-req²:
I like merging this, but doing both CLTV things in one swoop would be
really nice. Certainly if we're gonna use one of the
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
And I'll ask again. Do you have a *specific, credible alternative*?
Because so far I'm not seeing one.
I think you are rubbing against your own presupposition that people must
find and alternative right now. Quite a lot here do
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Gavin Costin slashdevn...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Can anyone opposed to this proposal articulate in plain english the worst
case scenario(s) if it goes ahead?
Some people in the conversation appear to be uncomfortable, perturbed,
defensive etc about the proposal ….
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
Right now there is this nice warm fuzzy notion that decisions in Bitcoin
Core are made by consensus. Controversial changes are avoided. I am
trying to show you that this is just marketing.
Consensus is arrived when the people
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
Maybe you dislike that idea. It's so centralised. So let's say Gavin
commits his patch, because his authority is equal to all other committers.
Someone else rolls it back. Gavin sets up a cron job to keep committing the
, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 01:54:33AM +0100, Btc Drak wrote:
That said, if people have strong feelings about this, I would be
willing
to make OP_CLTV work as follows:
nLockTime 1 OP_CLTV
Where the 1 selects absolute mode, and all others
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Raystonn . rayst...@hotmail.com wrote:
No, with no blocksize limit, a spammer would would flood the network with
transactions until they ran out of money.
I think you are forgetting even if you remove the blocksize limit, there is
still a hard message size
I did wonder what the post actually meant, I recommend appending /s after
sarcasm so it's clear. Lots gets lost in text. But I agree with you btw his
response was not particularly tactful.
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wtog...@gmail.com wrote:
By reversing Mike's language to
15 matches
Mail list logo
