[bitcoin-dev] Notice: List Infrastructure Migration

Be advised that starting this week bitcoin-dev, lightning-dev and other Bitcoin-oriented lists currently still active at https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo will begin migration to the Linux Foundation's new list infrastructure operated by groups.io. You may continue to use these

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fee smoothing

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Luzius Meisser wrote: > I agree that flex cap is promising. However, for it to be a viable > long-term solution, it must not depend on significant block subsidies > to work as the block subsidy will become less and less relevant over >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft

I am skeptical that any license for the blockchain itself is needed because of the possibility that the blockchain is not entitled to copyright protection. While I am not a lawyer, I have stared hard at the copyright doctrine of the U.S. in multiple law school Intellectual Property courses and

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

I honestly don't understand your position, but I get the sense that you are suggesting Satoshi wouldn't be welcome to return if he wanted to be active in development again? Warren On Aug 17, 2015 1:38 PM, Oliver Egginger bitc...@olivere.de wrote: Am 17.08.2015 um 21:03 schrieb Warren Togami

Re: [bitcoin-dev] That email was almost certainly not the real Satoshi

Dude, while it does appear plausible that the box is insecure, is it truly warranted to jump to any particular conclusion from that alone? What if all the open ports is just because it is a honey pot? On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Jonathan Wilkins via bitcoin-dev