In these shocking forking times, nothing more relaxing that to immerse
yourself in a pure technical reading about cryptocurrency design, letting
aside Bitcoin politics for a moment. This message is about cryptocurrencies
design in general, so you're free to skip my message if you think it will
Hey folks,
so you've been stressed with arguing about what to do with the block size for
months now :(
Why not realize that the unfruitful permanent need for administrators to tweak
a magical, god-given (= Satoshi-given) constant is a *strong* indicator for
something which should be delegated
Hi Eric,
Sorry you feel that way. I devoted a big part of the article to trying to
fairly represent the top 3 arguments made, but ultimately I can't link to a
clear statement of what Bitcoin Core thinks because there isn't one. Some
people think the block size should increase, but not now, or not
On 16 August 2015 at 15:49, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Sorry you feel that way. I devoted a big part of the article to trying to
fairly represent the top 3 arguments made, but ultimately I can't link to a
clear statement of what Bitcoin Core thinks
Hear hear Tamas,
I agree. I personally prefer to use the only-bigblocks branch and not XT
with all its features - but as I am not mining that doesn't mean much
anyhow. Nevertheless I am happy to be able to publicly proclaim my opinion
that the block size should be raised asap.
Thank you for
Hi Tamas
Do you find BIP 101, BIP 102, BIP 103 and the flexcap proposal
deserving of equal consideration? Just curious because of your post.
Will you be interested to participate in the BIP review process and
perhaps attend the workshop on Bitcoin scaling announced here
recently?
Adam
On 16
Hi Adam,
I welcomed XT for its declared focus on usability with current means.
I think there is also more room for non-consenus relevant P2P protocol flavors
than a single code base can accommodate.
XT is also as Jeff just tweeted a relief valve.
It became important, that Bitcoin is able to
Being a bitcoin software developer an entrepreneur for years I learned that
success is not a direct consequence of technology and is not inevitable.
BitcoinXT manifesto (https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt#the-xt-manifesto)
should resonate with many fellow entrepreneurs.
I applaud Mike and
Levin, it is a complicated issue for which there isn't an easy answer. Part
of the issue is that block size doesn't actually measure resource usage
very reliably. It is possible to support a much higher volume of typical
usage transactions than transactions specifically constructed to cause DoS
Since it was a game theory analysis. I will not address your other comments.
On 17/8/2015 7:22 AM, Andrew LeCody wrote:
4. Setup a fork of Bitcoin XT that allows people to easily make a
transaction only on the XT fork (while leaving the original BTC coins
untouched).
I doubt this is even
Cam, your scenario makes no sense.
1. Spoil the ballot. Have Bitcoin Core propagate the Bitcoin XT version
string.
2. Encourage all miners to false vote for the Bitcoin XT fork.
This would obliterate any confidence in Bitcoin Core. I seriously doubt
anyone would actually be ok with a pull
minimum an interesting topic.
- Traffic levels may not produce a minimum size block
- Miners can always collude to produce a lowered maximum block size, a sort
of minimum maximum
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Levin Keller via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Hey
The first question to answer here is simple:
What value would there be in requiring a minimum block size?
I see no value.
On 08/16/2015 05:30 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote:
minimum an interesting topic.
- Traffic levels may not produce a minimum size block
- Miners can always
Thanks to mining centralization, such attempts won't be successful.
Asking mining pools to mine spoofing blocks in their real name is even
harder than asking them to run the real BitcoinXT
Node count is always manipulable, there is nothing new. People running
this will only be interpreted as
PS: I consider this attempt at takeover about as foul as it gets. The
equivalent of repeating a referendum until a yes is obtained: the
reasonable reaction to this is actively blocking said referendum. There
was a fair play alternative which is voting through coinbase scriptSig like
plain 8MBers
[cross-posted to libbitcoin]
I applaud this effort not for the merits of the hard fork but on the
effects of the code fork. We have been witnessing the self-destruction
of Bitcoin's central authority. This is a necessary outcome.
Understandably, many are concerned that if consensus settles on a
Announcing Not-BitcoinXT
https://github.com/xtbit/notbitcoinxt#not-bitcoin-xt
-
ONLY AT VFEmail! - Use our Metadata Mitigator to keep your email out of the
NSA's hands!
$24.95 ONETIME Lifetime accounts with Privacy Features!
15GB disk! No
17 matches
Mail list logo
