Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed list moderation policy and conduct

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Another point building on Justus's remarks that I'll make (below) Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev: > On 14/10/15 19:02, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> *Disclose potential conflicts* >> >> 1. List discussions often involve interested

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin-NG whitepaper.

gt; It seems it still needs some tuning, but seems like if the >>>> pool-mining issues were resolved it could make block relay >>>> times irrelevant, at least. >>>> >>>> Matt >>>> >>>> On October 14, 2015 3:21:19 PM PDT, odinn

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Memory leaks?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 For the record, Mr. Hearn, you do not own this list. I submit to you that you have very little to say on this matter at this stage and your idle threats to "ban people" based on their preferences, suggestions, or characterizations of your chosen

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin-NG whitepaper.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 This (Bitcoin-NG in concept) could be done as a (issue and pull request process) to Bitcoin Core itself, amirite? It seems like it would provide an interesting issue to open and have healthy discussion on both mailing list and github, adding the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed list moderation policy and conduct

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 I am concerned that someone will always call "off topic" regardless of how on-topic something actually is. There is no objective measure of on-topicness here (or hasn't been) unless we say it has to do with bitcoin development. If you say,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Memory leaks?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 You should compare this to having set up a node on a completely clean computer. It would also help to know what operating system(s) you are using for both the oldie and the freshie. Also, dump your XT, is poo. Then try again, look at Core nodes

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Incentives to run full nodes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 (Note: Due to being very tired I have issued a correction to my post below so as to make sure I have not been misunderstood.) odinn via bitcoin-dev: > Hello, > > Some background on this > > > A very long while ago I pos

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Design Competition

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Grosses me out that you have enforced KYC as part of what you are doing for anyone who would decide to get involved: https://wiki.lykkex.com/?id=start#lykke_citizens Good luck with that, I'm sure not going to be a part of it, and I recommend that

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hello, (see my remarks below) jl2012 via bitcoin-dev: > Jonathan Toomim (Toomim Bros) via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-09-29 09:30 寫 > 到: >> SPV clients will appear to behave normally, and will continue to >> show new transactions and get confirmations in a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 100 repo

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Excellent - thank you. Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev: > Oops, link paste fail. > > The repo: https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100 > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Jeff Garzik > wrote: > >> Opened a repo containing the full

Re: [bitcoin-dev] AT has effectively banned Bitcoin nodes by closing port 8333 via a hidden firewall in the cable box

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Another note on this subject to add to the stuff people have already mentioned... If you have the AT landline but don't use AT's standard internet / tv (what they call Uverse) offering - that is, if you prefer to use some local internet provider -

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Bitcoin Privacy Protect Privacy Questionnaire, Mid-Year 2015 report

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Related: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/6568 Kristov Atlas via bitcoin-dev: Hi Wei, As you know, I'm not a developer of Bitcoin-Qt, but we'll need to make our best guesses for these answers if the developers won't reply. I'm going

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIPS proposal for implementing AML-KYC in bitcoin

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Well, On 08/27/2015 06:39 AM, prabhat via bitcoin-dev wrote: Fine point. So where is the solution? What to do? You could study bitcoin some more and understand what it is instead of proposing to implement AML-KYC in bitcoin which shows vast

Re: [bitcoin-dev] RE : Visualizations of Votes

://bitcoinstats.com/network/votes/ On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 7:25 AM odinn via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: Hello Nicolas, On 08/20/2015 08:49 PM, Nicolas Dorier via bitcoin-dev wrote: A visualization I would like to see would

[bitcoin-dev] Visualizations of Votes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This is a simple post. Who's got visualizations of votes? One I've seen that I liked was http://bipsxdevs.azurewebsites.net/ This just covered how developers feel about the various BIPs though. A visualization I would like to see would include:

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Will there be a freeze of the current protocol version?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 To answer your question, from my perspective, I am not opposed to block size increase.. I am hoping it would be in the context of something like BIP 100 as I've said before. But I'm extremely opposed to XT. Would I continue with bitcoin if things

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an experimental hardfork?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/19/2015 04:06 AM, Jorge Timón wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:14 PM, odinn odinn.cyberguerri...@riseup.net wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Firstly, XT is controversial, not uncontroversial; XT it's just a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 re. Gavin and commit access On 08/19/2015 12:15 PM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote: Normal GitHub users submitting pull-reqs to Bitcoin Core can't delete other users' comments

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an experimental hardfork?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Firstly, XT is controversial, not uncontroversial; Second, this issue has been beat to death quite a while ago https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/899#issuecomment-117 815987 Third, it poses major risks as a non-peer reviewed alt with

[bitcoin-dev] Ensuring Users have Safe Software and Version

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Recently I was re-reading the following (which has been edited periodically): https://bitcoin.org/en/alerts It currently reads, There is no ongoing event on the Bitcoin network. However, in reading the most recent alert on that page, we are (it

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The XT Fork (better said, a POS alt*) and those behind it make not even a pretense to work through process involved with bitcoin developmen t. (*This is not intended as a slight toward any other alts, as here in this post I am focusing solely on XT.)

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Incentives to run full nodes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Potentially relevant... Incentivizing the running of full nodes https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2014-June/006028 .html (However, the issue to which I referred here is now closed) View whole thread:

[bitcoin-dev] Voting (BIP-100) Question, Etc.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Assuming some form of BIP 100 is a path which people may want to take, how and at what point do miners vote on this? Note: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/37943/bip-100-what-votes-are - -possible describes this somewhat, but is unclear as

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello, I thought these were good points, but I have a couple questions.. . On 08/11/2015 12:08 AM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev wrote: On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hey Angel, On 08/11/2015 02:14 AM, Angel Leon via bitcoin-dev wrote: -policy neutrality. - It can't be censored. - it can't be shut down - and the rules cannot change from underneath you. except it can be shutdown the minute it actually gets

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A compromise between BIP101 and Pieter's proposal

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I am in favor of a more gradual (longer) period and a softforking solution... that is, more than 30 days of grace period (some period between 60 days and a year), ... ... and given the number of valid softforking proposals out there it seems to me

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn'ttemporary

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I will jump in just because I feel like it because the questions are fun and so on. (Of course I am not Gregory) On 07/29/2015 02:28 PM, Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev wrote: Gregory, can you please speak to the following points. I would like a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] For discussion: limit transaction size to mitigate CVE-2013-2292

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Interesting, so this basically would merge into an already existing BIP (Jeff Garzik's). However, it proposes some changes. OK CVE-2013-2292 is a severity thingy of high which is described as bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt 0.8.0 and earlier allow remote

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core 0.11.0 released

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The numbering of the version, though. shivers On 07/12/2015 08:49 AM, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote: Bitcoin Core version 0.11.0 is now available from: https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.11.0/ This is a new major version release, bringing