Hi leohaf.
>Is this implementation able to start other nodes whether they are on the
>reference implementation or on Floresta?
You mean serve blocks to others? If so, Floresta is a prune-first node, meant
to be used with only outgoing connections, so no.
>Is it possible to switch from
ining pools complain to me that they and their
>> >> employees have been harassed over full-rbf, so obviously I'm not going to
>> >> provide you with any private contact information I have. There's no need
>> >> to
>> >> expos
HI Bastiaan van den Berg, thanks for your reply.
>the utreexo bridge peers are the only real bitcoin nodes
I think this is not correct. Floresta is a Compact State Node (CSN), it keeps
only the bare minimum to validate blocks and transactions, but it still
performs everything a bridge or a
Hi, delighted to see an implementation of Utreexo.
I will just have a few questions about your implementation.
1) Is this implementation able to start other nodes whether they are on the
reference implementation or on Floresta?
2) Is it possible to switch from Bitcoin Core to Floresta without
?
> >>
> >> --
> >> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> >>
> >
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/
Storage is not and never has been the trouble with block sizes. Please,
before participating in discussions of this topic, at least get a basic
understanding of it. Here's a talk I did a few years ago to get you
started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNEQS80-h4=7s
Luke
On 8/2/23 07:07,
On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 01:38:21PM +0300, Daniel Lipshitz wrote:
> Your assessment of my dishonesty is based on your assumption of how I
> should be running GAP600, your assumptions are baseless and lack commercial
> experience and likewise your conclusions are false.
>
> I have provided already
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130
Sjors Provoost suggested that I email this mailing list as notice of my intent
to get a pull-req merged that would remove the arbitrary 80-byte, 1 output /
tx, standardness restrictions on OP_Return outputs. His rationale was that
removing these
