Bitcoin Knots version 0.21.1.knots20210629 is now available from:
https://bitcoinknots.org/files/0.21.x/0.21.1.knots20210629/
This release includes new features, various bug fixes and performance
improvements, as well as updated translations.
Please report bugs using the issue tracker at
+1 from the author of BIP43, BIP44 and BIP84. The proposed BIP follows this
pattern nicely.
--
Best Regards / S pozdravom,
Pavol "stick" Rusnak
Co-founder and CTO, SatoshiLabs
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
@Jorge
>I don't think we should avoid splits at all costs.
I absolutely agree that we shouldn't avoid splits at all costs. There are
some costs too high to pay to avoid a split. If an economic majority
started wanting to increase bitcoin's blocksize to 1 GB next year, we
should absolutely hard
> Majority hash power does have the ability to determine what gets
confirmed.
Miners don’t have the ability to decide whether a block is valid.
Hash power is only recognized as such if it is used for creating a valid
block, i.e., a block that strictly follows all the rules as set by the node
Hi Prayank,
> So majority hash power not following the consensus rules can result in chain
> split?
Any two people on different rules implies a chain split. That’s presumably why
rule changes are called forks. There is no actual concept of “the rules” just
one set of rules or another.
> From: Jorge Timón
>> "Soft forks aren’t compatible without miner enforcement"
> Compatible with what?
There is a good summary of what is meant by this term in BIP141:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki
"Backward compatibility
As a soft fork, older software will
All good questions.
> Is the goal here to do what the economic majority wants, or some other group?
> If so, do you think we have an accurate way of measuring what the economic
> majority wants?
It’s important that people understand that “economic” does not refer to people
interested
"Softforks arentcompatible without miner enforcement"
Compatible with what?
"Softforks without miner support cause splits".
No, what causes splits are 3 things:
1) bugs
2) coordination mistakes
3) people wanting different rules.
Let me give an example. Let's say all users want change A.
Only
Eric,
> A million nodes saying a transaction is invalid does nothing to enforce
that knowledge
It does. Nodes disregard invalid transactions and invalid blocks as if they
never existed. It is not possible for any party to transact bitcoin in a
way that violates the set of rules enforced by the
We cannot prevent people from choosing to take an action based on an
unconfirmed transaction. Even though it is trivial to have a
double-spending transaction confirmed, accepting a 0-conf tx can be
rational in many cases. 0-conf can be interpreted as the customer
signaling their 'intent to pay',
Dear ZmnSCPxj
Thanks for dedicating time to read carefully the Sabu proposal and many
thanks for your accurate point. So, lets fix it.
I didn’t suppose Alice has only one UTXO, instead I expect every issuer
use hundreds or even millions UTXOs (for optimal benefit each worth
exactly 40,000
> I’ve seen no actual demonstration of the relevance of game theory to Bitcoin.
>People throw the words around quite a bit, but I can’t give you an answer
>because I have found no evidence of a valid game theoretic model applicable to
>Bitcoin. It’s not a game, it’s a market.
Agree its
Hi Eric,
> A node (software) doesn’t enforce anything. Merchants enforce consensus
rules
… by running a node which they believe to enforce the rules of Bitcoin.
A node definitely enforces consensus rules and defines what is Bitcoin. I
am quite disturbed that this is even being debated here.
A million nodes saying a transaction is invalid does nothing to enforce that
knowledge.
An economic node is a person who refuses to accept invalid money. A node only
informs this decision, it cannot enforce it. That’s up to people.
And clearly if one is not actually accepting bitcoin for
> On Jun 30, 2021, at 05:45, Zac Greenwood wrote:
>
>
> Eric,
>
> > A million nodes saying a transaction is invalid does nothing to enforce
> > that knowledge
>
> It does. Nodes disregard invalid transactions and invalid blocks as if they
> never existed. It is not possible for any party
> I would prefer to see nodes forward any transaction conflicting
transaction, so long as it has a higher fee. Is there a reason this would
be undesirable?
There is a spam risk there, where someone could intend to pay a fee of 1000
sats, but every time they make a payment, they generate a
@Jorge
> I disagree... I would oppose such a change no matter what other users or
miners say.
I don't know why you think we disagree on that point. I agree that I would
oppose a change to 1GB blocks no matter what other users or miners say. You
must have misunderstood me there.
>> Are you
It feels like this discussion has gotten a bit off topic. The proposal is
intended to provide a best-of-both-worlds middleground between BIP8 and
BIP9. It would be nice if we could bring it back to a discussion of my
proposal in the context of other existing deployment plans (BIP8, BIP9,
taproot's
18 matches
Mail list logo
