Re: [bitcoin-dev] Three hardfork-related BIPs

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 07:43:48PM +, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 10:36:16 AM Natanael wrote: > > There aren't all that many cases where fraud proofs are unreasonably large > > for a networked system like in Bitcoin. If Zero-knowledge proofs can be > >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Three hardfork-related BIPs

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 10:36:16 AM Natanael wrote: > Den 28 jan. 2017 05:04 skrev "Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev" < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > > Satoshi envisioned a system where full nodes could publish proofs of > > invalid blocks that would be automatically verified by SPV

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Three hardfork-related BIPs

On 27 January 2017 15:53:02 GMT-08:00, Andrew Johnson via bitcoin-dev wrote: >I'd also like to point out to Luke that Satoshi envisioned most full >nodes >running in data centers in the white paper, not every single user needs >to >run a full node to use

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Three hardfork-related BIPs

On 28 January 2017 02:36:16 GMT-08:00, Natanael via bitcoin-dev wrote: >Den 28 jan. 2017 05:04 skrev "Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev" < >bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > >Satoshi envisioned a system where full nodes could publish proofs of >invalid

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Forcenet: an experimental network with a new header format

Replies inline. On 01/28/17 07:28, Johnson Lau wrote: > >> On 28 Jan 2017, at 10:32, Matt Corallo > > wrote: >> >> Looks cool, though I have a few comments inline. >> >> One general note - it looks like you're letting complexity run