-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
odinn via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-08-19 07:25 寫到:
The big problem is
BIP101 being deployed as a Schism hardfork.
This is certainly a problem.
No, BitcoinXT won't become a Schism hardfork, or may be just for a few
days, at most.
There is one, and only one scenario that BitcoinXT will win:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:25 PM, odinn odinn.cyberguerri...@riseup.net wrote:
-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:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:22 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Will the adoption of BitcoinXT lead by miners? No, it won't. Actually,
Chinese miners who control 60% of the network has already said that they
would not adopt XT. So they must not be the
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Danny Thorpe danny.tho...@gmail.com wrote:
How do big-block testnet nodes running this 6382 rev recognize each other
on the peer network? If I set up a 2MB block limit testnet node and -addnode
another 2MB block testnet node (say, JornC's node) to it, and my
-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
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 software fork.
BIP101 (as currently implemented in Bitcoin XT) is a Schism hardfork
(or an altcoin),
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:34 PM, jl2...@xbt.hk wrote:
You misunderstand my intention. The experiment is not about a random
hardfork. It's about a block size increase hardfork.
One of your goals is show the world that reaching consensus for a
Bitcoin hardfork is possible, right?
BIP99 can
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:54 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
As I understand, there is already a consensus among core dev that block size
should/could be raised. The remaining questions are how, when, how much, and
how fast. These are the questions for
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Danny Thorpe via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Ya, so? All that means is that the experiment might reach the hard fork
tipping point faster than mainnet would. Verifying that the network can
handle such transitions, and how larger
A smaller block size would make this a soft fork, as unupgraded nodes would
consider the new blocks valid. It would only make things that were allowed
forbidden, which is the definition of a soft fork. For a hard fork, you
need to allow something that was previously invalid.
On Tuesday, August
Ya, so? All that means is that the experiment might reach the hard fork
tipping point faster than mainnet would. Verifying that the network can
handle such transitions, and how larger blocks affect the network, is the
point of testing.
And when I refer to testnet, I mean the public global
Again, I'm not suggesting further testing in sterile environments. I'm
suggesting testing on the public global testnet network, so that real-world
hazards such as network lag, bandwidth constraints, traffic bottlenecks,
etc can wreak what havoc they can on the proposed implementation. Also, a
As I understand, there is already a consensus among core dev that block
size should/could be raised. The remaining questions are how, when, how
much, and how fast. These are the questions for the coming Bitcoin
Scalability Workshops but immediate consensus in these issues are not
guaranteed.
- You need to take into account the reward halving, likely to be in
3Q2016. Forks and reward halving at the same time would possibly be a bad
combination.
- The original proposed date for the fork was December 2015. It was pushed
back to January as December is a busy period for a lot of people
15 matches
Mail list logo
