On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:00:14AM +0200, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote:
It is just that no one else is reckless enough to bypass the review process
I keep seeing this notion crop up.
I want to kill this idea right now:
- There were months of public discussion leading to up
It is just that no one else is reckless enough to bypass the review process
I keep seeing this notion crop up.
I want to kill this idea right now:
- There were months of public discussion leading to up the authoring of
BIP 101, both on this mailing list and elsewhere.
- BIP 101 was
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:22:32AM -0700, Simon Liu via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Olivier Janssens claims that one of your colleagues is asking for Gavin
to be removed from his position. Is this true?
Gavin has been very clear about the fact that he's on vacation. I'm not sure
what you want Mike to say. It's obvious the Bitcoin Core developer pitchforks
are out for him so there isn't really anything he can possibly say which will
be constructively received on this highly adversarial and
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 on their own pull-reqs...
IMO that's an abuse of the pull-req process, and in turn, Gavin
Andresens's commit access rights for the
On Aug 19, 2015, at 12:12 PM, Santino Napolitano via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Gavin has been very clear about the fact that he's on vacation. I'm not sure
what you want Mike to say. It's obvious the Bitcoin Core developer pitchforks
are out for him so
-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
Unfortunately, I think that from a PR angle, removing Gavin from commit
privileges right now will probably play into his hand. Sadly.
Say what you will regarding Gavin and Mike’s technical merits, they’ve been
quite clever on the PR front. Framing this issue as “obstructionism from the
core
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
[...]
core devs” and relying on the fact that many people out there can’t seem to
tell the difference between a source code fork and a blockchain fork.
And this is precisely why we
[cross-posted to libbitcoin]
On 08/19/2015 03:00 PM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote: On Wed, Aug
19, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Eric Lombrozo elombr...@gmail.com wrote:
But the consensus code should NOT be subject to the same commit
policies…and we should make an effort to separate the two clearly.
By the way, now that I remember why I subscribed to the libbitcoin
list I want to share it with you.
I met Amir Taaki in person in a spanish hackmeeting and had the chance
to talk a lot with him, very interesting person whose input in this
blocksize matter I would greatly appreciate. He explained
Yes, you're right, the Bitcoin Foundation is facing many challenges, but
that's an entirely different discussion.
The question in hand is this: was the request to remove Gavin made by an
individual of their own volition, reflecting their own personal opinion,
or was it made on behalf of the
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Eric Voskuil e...@voskuil.org wrote:
[cross-posted to libbitcoin]
On 08/19/2015 03:00 PM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote: On Wed, Aug
19, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Eric Lombrozo elombr...@gmail.com wrote:
But the consensus code should NOT be subject to the same
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Eric Lombrozo elombr...@gmail.com wrote:
But the consensus code should NOT be subject to the same commit policies…and
we should make an effort to separate the two clearly. And we should find a
way to communicate the difference succinctly and clearly to
Can this anecdote and similar be removed from the mailing list.
Possibly one of the reddits is a better place for this kind of thing.
On 20/8/15 7:56 am, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
By the way, now that I remember why I subscribed to the libbitcoin
Am 18.08.2015 um 11:15 schrieb Warren Togami Jr.:
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?
Who am I? Personally I have zero objection if the creator steps in. I
And this is how the powers that be compromise bitcoin. They can't stop
TCP/IP, but they sure can take over the development team. It's a good thing
that no one from the CIA has had any conversations with anyone from the
bitcoin development team. Phew...
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Oliver
-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.)
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
Am 15.08.2015 um 19:43 schrieb Satoshi Nakamoto via bitcoin-dev:
I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list.
I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve
widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT
On Aug 17, 2015 1:40 PM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
That made it to the news and is now discussed in various places. Could
you please delete Satoshis old email addresses from the list and block
them? Sorry to post this to all members but I
Am 17.08.2015 um 13:44 schrieb Jorge Timón:
On Aug 17, 2015 1:40 PM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
That made it to the news and is now discussed in various places. Could
you please delete Satoshis
At
http://media.scmagazine.com/documents/127/virtual_currency_rules_31557.pdf,
section 200.3(c)(2) lists consumers that utilize Virtual Currency solely
for the purchase or sale of goods or services or for investment purposes
as Persons [who] are exempt from the licensing requirements.
Who else is
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Would we discuss his
posting if he would not claim to be Satoshi? There are a lot of smart
people on this list, which publish occasionally quite useful ideas.
I actually learned
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Oliver Egginger bitc...@olivere.de wrote:
Am 17.08.2015 um 18:32 schrieb Jorge Timón:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Oliver Egginger bitc...@olivere.de wrote:
Am 17.08.2015 um 13:44 schrieb Jorge Timón:
On Aug 17, 2015 1:40 PM, Oliver Egginger via
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
To avoid such discussions.
You seem to be assuming that there is specific reason to believe the
message is unauthentic. This is not the case.
Contrary to other poster's claims, if the
In times of controversy or flamewar on the Linux kernel mailing list,
occasionally fake Linus Torvalds or other spoofed posts would appear. It
is the nature of email. Just ignore it.
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Am 17.08.2015 um 18:32 schrieb Jorge Timón:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Oliver Egginger bitc...@olivere.de wrote:
Am 17.08.2015 um 13:44 schrieb Jorge Timón:
On Aug 17, 2015 1:40 PM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On 15 August 2015 at 18:43, Satoshi Nakamoto via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of
relying
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
enter the mining game. A bit like making P2Pool the one and only pool
allowed on the network.
Thats been suggested, though scalablity reasons make this hard: in the
P2Pool design
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Oliver Egginger bitc...@olivere.de wrote:
Am 17.08.2015 um 13:44 schrieb Jorge Timón:
On Aug 17, 2015 1:40 PM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
That made it to the news
Am 17.08.2015 um 21:03 schrieb Warren Togami Jr.:
This bitcoin-dev list restarted with an empty subscriber list on June
21st, 2015. So whoever posted from sato...@vistomail.com
mailto:sato...@vistomail.com subscribed and verified the address
recently. Do you propose that we manually approve
32 matches
Mail list logo
