Bitcoin has no elections; it has no courts. If not through attempting a
hard-fork, how should we properly resolve irreconcilable disagreements?
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Please take the lightning 101 discussion
consensus on the
criticality of the block size issue: do you agree, disagree, or not take a
side, and why?
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote
is trustlessness - being able
to transact without relying on third parties.
Adam
On 11 August 2015 at 22:18, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
The only reason why Bitcoin has grown the way it has, and in fact the
only
reason why we're all even here
Re: In my opinion the main source of disagreement is that one: how the
maximum block size limits centralization.
I generally agree with that, but I would add that centralization is only a
goal insofar as it serves things like reliability, transaction integrity,
capacity, and accessibility. More
All things considered, if people want to participate in a global consensus
network, and the technology exist to do it at a lower cost, then is it
sensible or even possible to somehow arbitrarily set the price of
participating in a global consensus network to be expensive? Can someone
please walk
How many nodes are necessary to ensure sufficient network reliability? Ten,
a hundred, a thousand? At what point do we hit the point of diminishing
returns, where adding extra nodes starts to have negligible impact on the
overall reliability of the system?
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:26 AM,
