Peter I was curious if you could detail what specific concerns Adam Back
brought up with the current iteration of the tree-chains idea? It's been
alluded to a few times yet I have not read the specific problem.
Greg
How does this system handle problems with the lower chains after they have
been locked-in?
The rule is that if a block in the child chain is pointed to by its parent,
then it effectively has infinite POW?
The point of the system is that a node monitoring the parent chain only has
to watch the
Anyway the particular situation in which a single entity controls 40%
of the hashing power should be rare. That's potentially dangerous for
bitcoin and although changing the hashing algorithm would be painful
and risky, I would be terribly scared of that happening if I was that
entity.
I'll make sure I understand your proposal better before commenting
much on it, but at a first glance, I don't see how it is incompatible
with 2 way peg and merged mining itself.
Why wouldn't you want merged mining for the root of your tree?
A miner could only chose a leaf block at a time, but it
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:43:34PM -0700, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
Btw, any chance we could get a summary description of tree-chains
posted to bitcoin-development?
Sure:
Introduction
Bitcoin doesn't scale. There's a lot of issues at hand here, but the
most fundemental of them is
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
Bitcoin doesn't scale. There's a lot of issues at hand here, but the
most fundemental of them is that to create a block you need to update
the state of the UTXO set, and the way Bitcoin is designed means that
updating that
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 08:28:51AM -0400, Peter Todd wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:43:34PM -0700, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
Btw, any chance we could get a summary description of tree-chains
posted to bitcoin-development?
Sure:
Introduction
BTW for those whose email
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 08:45:00AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
Bitcoin doesn't scale. There's a lot of issues at hand here, but the
most fundemental of them is that to create a block you need to update
the state of the
A few months ago I had a conversation with an executive at a Bitcoin
company, and I suggested their developers should get involved with the
development list. I was told that they are all subscribed but refuse to
post. Puzzled, I asked why, maybe the process isn't clear or we didn't talk
about what
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
For the record, tree chains is designed to be a soft-fork upgrade to bitcoin,
at least if we can get the economics to work out. Assuming it does, you would
do this by defining bitcoin itself to be the top level chain, and carrying what
appear to
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
For someone with 'Chief Scientist' as their job title, I'm surprised you
think so little of hard evidence and so much of idol worshipping.
Peter, take this unprofessional, personal crap off-list.
Mike's anecdote of hostility
I would echo the need for some kind of moderation.
I believe Peter Todd is an extremely intelligent individual, who has a
lot to offer the Bitcoin community. He has a firm grasp of a lot of
really deep Bitcoin concepts and his *technical* insight is generally
positive. Technically. But the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
OK, deal. You guys stop calling my concerns FUD, accusing me of having ulterior
motives, etc. and I'll pay the same respect to you.
On 25 March 2014 14:13:36 GMT-04:00, slush sl...@centrum.cz wrote:
I fully agree, please keep friendly environment
2014-03-25 13:49 GMT+00:00 Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 08:45:00AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
Bitcoin doesn't scale. There's a lot of issues at hand here, but the
most fundemental of them is
I'm afraid I'm going to be the jerk that requested more details and then
only nitpicks seemingly minor points in your introduction. But its
because I need more time to digest the contents of your proposal. Until
then:
But moving value between chains is inconvenient; right now moving
value
Peter,
I think you and I both know there is WAAYY to much MONEY to be taken
from naive end-users by the companies that employ people who call
your concerns FUD.
And for everyone else, I want to apologize in advance for anything
I might happen to say that might be abrasive, arrogant, angry, or
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 08:40:40PM +, Ricardo Filipe wrote:
2014-03-25 13:49 GMT+00:00 Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 08:45:00AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
Bitcoin doesn't scale. There's a
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Mark Friedenbach m...@monetize.io wrote:
More importantly, to your last point there is absolutely no way this
scheme can lead to inflation. The worst that could happen is theft of
coins willingly put into the pegging pool. But in no way is it possible
to
18 matches
Mail list logo
