> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 at 8:21 PM
> From: "Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev"
> To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork
> technical debate
> On 10/5/2015 4:05 PM, Steven Pine via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> It's pretty cle
On Monday 5. October 2015 21.26.01 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
>
> wrote:
> > On Monday 5. October 2015 20.56.34 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> >> (In this case, I don't even believe we have any regulator
> >>
> >> contributors that disagree).
>
I prefer the term "clown".
Can we please move on?
-- Original Message --
From: "cipher anthem via bitcoin-dev"
To: mi...@bitcoins.info
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Sent: 10/6/2015 12:17:14 AM
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork
technica
This is childish and very disappointing to see.
2015-10-06 9:20 GMT+02:00 Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> I prefer the term "clown".
>
> Can we please move on?
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "cipher anthem via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev@list
I think I can solve the debate and give everyone what they want.
Some people want BIP65, others do not.
We can roll out 65 in a clever way, such that Greg/PeterT can get it, but
Mike and Peter R don't need to have it (both versions can run alongside
each other). Even better, people can switch bac
On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 05:19:06PM -0700, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Alex, decreasing granularity is a soft-fork, increasing is a hard-fork.
> Therefore I've kept the highest possible precision (1 second, 1 block) with
> the expectation that at some point in the future if we need mo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sergio Demain,
You and I have had our altercation, in private, about your assumptions
of authority in this community. That was fine when you told me "for
fuck's sake" on IRC. I'm a man and I made you see your error and
apologize for your trespass.
No
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tell you what, eloquent guy...
Give me 15 minutes in a public open mic session with you and i'll
remove you from your high horse and close your voice in Bitcoin, for
good.
Guaranteed. You're too stupid for me to let you run loose with client
funds an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
That's for Mike Hearn. Sooner the better. Hong Kong, December?
Venzen Khaosan
On 10/07/2015 01:23 AM, Venzen Khaosan via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Tell you what, eloquent guy...
>
> Give me 15 minutes in a public open mic session with you and i'll
> rem
Hey all, nice to meet you... I'm new to the community and thus, after taking
that first step of signing up, have been reading/scanning these threads over
the last few days without contributing my own two ¢-- not, um, 'trolling',
just, you know, educating myself and getting familiar with the grou
Just read the proposal for the dual modes... Think it would be best... Protocol
question? Do we discuss the algorithms here on this forum? Or...
Sorry again for my thick skull!
Nina K
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 6, 2015, at 1:34 AM, NotMike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>
> I think I ca
Hi Peter,
On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 04:30:56PM +0200, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> So we need to make the case for two main things:
>
> 1) We have applications that need a relative (instead of absolute CLTV)
Lightning network needs RCLTV for bidireciontal payment channels without
an explici
Hi Byron,
I've been using shadow a bit-- I think these simulators are important for
testing, but Shadow, at least, certainly seems to have limitations, in some
crucial respects. Running shadow w Tor (which is only logical, because many
BCT transactions transpire over Tor) is not as 'light' as
Shadow uses virtual time, entirely decoupled from real time. So while it
may slow down your machine, this would not affect the stats collected
(although it does make shadow somewhat unpleasant to run, unless you have a
fast machine, compared to abstract simulators that avoid running the
actual Bi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
In any case this is basically the purpose of version tracking software
such as Git or CVS or any other. It would not be hard to figure out who
had done what. I see you're splitting hairs over nothing as usual,
though, Russ, so I'll leave you to it.
Hi Venzen,
I don't know you and I never said "for fuck's sake" to anyone on IRC. I
don't use IRC, and almost never say 4 letter words.
I wonder how technically savvy people trust IRC ids. Could you send me the
link where such an impostor said something to you in my name?
Your e-mail reads like a
Bitcoin's participants can improve their ability to stay on a valuable
and censorship resistant blockchain by individually and informally
absorbing cultural wisdom regarding "rough consensus". This does not
require writing any formal rules about what rough consensus is. It is
a matter of particip
On Monday, October 5, 2015, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> As Greg explained to you repeatedly, a softfork won't cause a
>> non-upgraded full node to start accepting blocks that create more
>> subsidy than is valid.
>>
>
> It was an example. Adam Back'
18 matches
Mail list logo
