On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org wrote:
Hi Mike
Well thank you for replying openly on this topic, its helpful.
I apologise in advance if this gets quite to the point and at times
blunt, but transparency is important, and we owe it to the users who
see Bitcoin
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 08:33:31PM +0800, Pindar Wong wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org wrote:
Dear Adam, All:
At the community's convenience, it would be an honour to arrange an initial
open summit to meet with representatives of the Chinese miners in
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 08:33:31PM +0800, Pindar Wong wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org wrote:
Dear Adam, All:
At the community's convenience, it would be an honour to arrange an
Hi Bryan,
Specifically, when Adam mentioned your conversations with non-technical
people, he did not mean Mike has talked with people who have possibly not
made pull requests to Bitcoin Core, so therefore Mike is a non-programmer.
Yes, my comment was prickly and grumpy. No surprises, I did
How do you plan to deal with security incident response for the
duration you describe where you will have control while you are deploying
the unilateral hard-fork and being in sole maintainership control?
How do we plan to deal with security incident response - exactly the same
way as
Aaron,
My understanding is that Gavin and Mike are proceeding with the XT fork, I
hope that understanding is wrong.
As for improving the non-consensus code to handle full blocks more
gracefully. This is something I'm very interested in, block size increase
or not. Perhaps I shouldn't hijack
Thanks Alex, the work you've pointed out is helpful. Limiting mempool size
should at least prevent nodes from crashing. When I looked a few days ago I
only found a few old PRs that seemed to have fallen by the wayside, so this
new one is encouraging.
I can respond in the PR comments if it's more
On Jun 15, 2015, at 3:54 PM, odinn odinn.cyberguerri...@riseup.net wrote:
I also disagree with the notion that everybody's just ok with what
Mike and Gavin are doing specifically, this statement by Mike
The consensus you seek does exist. All wallet developers (except
Lawrence), all
Hi Mike
Well thank you for replying openly on this topic, its helpful.
I apologise in advance if this gets quite to the point and at times
blunt, but transparency is important, and we owe it to the users who
see Bitcoin as the start of a new future and the$3b of invested funds
and $600m of VC
I'm quite puzzled by the response myself, it doesn't seem to address some
of the (more serious) concerns that Adam put out, the most important
question that was asked being the one regarding personal ownership of the
proposed fork:
How do you plan to deal with security incident response for the
http://xtnodes.com/
From: Brian Hoffman
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 3:56 PM
To: Faiz Khan
Cc: Bitcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] questions about bitcoin-XT code fork
non-consensus hard-fork
Who is actually planning to move to Bitcoin-XT if this happens?
Just Gavin and Mike
Who is actually planning to move to Bitcoin-XT if this happens?
Just Gavin and Mike?
On Jun 15, 2015, at 6:17 PM, Faiz Khan faizkha...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm quite puzzled by the response myself, it doesn't seem to address some of
the (more serious) concerns that Adam put out, the most
Wasn't the XT hard fork proposed as a last resort, should the bitcoin-core
maintainers simply refuse to lift the 1Mb limit? No one wants to go that
route. An alternate hard-fork proposal like BIP100 that gets consensus, or
a modified version of gavin's that ups the limit to 8Mb instead of 20Mb, or
13 matches
Mail list logo
