I haven't seen much discussion on this list of what will happen when the
blockchain forks due to larger blocks. I think the debate surrounding this
issue is a storm in a teacup, because transactions on the smaller chain can
and will appear on the bigger chain also. There is nothing tying
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
There is nothing tying
transactions to the blocks they appear in.
Transactions can be recieved or accepted in different orders by
different nodes. The purpose of the blockchain is to resolve
+1 on the comments below by Thomas.
Fee market is not a
binary option, either on or off. Like all markets it exists in varying
degrees over time and with more or less influence on the process of which it is
part of. As it stands now, and likely for another decade at least,
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Mike Hearn he...@vinumeris.com wrote:
Hey Jorge,
He is not saying that. Whatever the reasons for centralization are, it
is obvious that increasing the size won't help.
It's not obvious. Quite possibly bigger blocks == more users == more nodes
and more
On 31 Jul 2015, at 11:56, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Friday 31. July 2015 03.21.07 Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:
If I was a miner and you want me to include your transaction for free,
you're asking me to give you money
What?
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
He is not saying that. Whatever the reasons for centralization are, it
is obvious that increasing the size won't help.
It's not obvious. Quite possibly bigger blocks == more users ==
That's all well and fine. But the pattern of your argument I would
say is arguing security down ie saying something is not secure
anyway, nothing is secure, everything could be hacked, so lets forget
that and give up, so that what is left is basically no
decentralisation security.
It is not
Hey Jorge,
He is not saying that. Whatever the reasons for centralization are, it
is obvious that increasing the size won't help.
It's not obvious. Quite possibly bigger blocks == more users == more nodes
and more miners.
To repeat: it's not obvious to me at all that everything wrong with
Yes, data-center operators are bound to follow laws, including NSLs
and gag orders. How about your ISP? Is it bound to follow laws,
including NSLs and gag orders?
https://edri.org/irish_isp_introduces_blocking/
Do you think everyone should run a full node behind TOR? No way, your
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Friday 31. July 2015 03.21.07 Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:
If I was a miner and you want me to include your transaction for free,
you're asking me to give you money
What?
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Because any decentralized system is going to have high transaction costs
and scarcity anyway.
This
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/31/2015 09:58 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote:
How more users or more nodes can bring more miners, or more
importantly, improve mining decentralization?
Because the bigger the ecosystem is the more interest there is in
taking
Here are some books that will help more people understand why Adam's
concern is important:
Kicking the Dragon (by Larken Rose)
The State (by Franz Oppenheimer)
Like he said, it isn't much about bitcoin. Our crypto is just one of the
defenses we've created, and understanding what it defends will
How more users or more nodes can bring more miners, or more importantly,
improve mining decentralization?
Because the bigger the ecosystem is the more interest there is in taking
part?
I mean, I guess I don't know how to answer your question. When Bitcoin was
new it had almost no users and
On 31 Jul 2015, at 06:59, Un Ix via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
+1 on the comments below by Thomas.
Fee market is not a binary option, either on or off. Like all markets it
exists in varying degrees over time and with more or less influence on the
Having said that, I must admit that the complex filtering mechanisms are
pretty clever...they almost make it practical to use SPV...now if only we
were committint to structures that can prove the validity of returned
datasets and miners actually validated stuff, it might also offer some
level of
On Thursday 30. July 2015 11.02.43 Mark Friedenbach wrote:
It is possible for a decentralized system like bitcoin to scale via
distribution in a way that introduces minimal trust, for example by
probabilistic validation and distribution of fraud proofs. However changes
to bitcoin consensus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Hearn, I might be a nobody to you, but you know i talk with
skill, so let me tell this Friday...
On 07/31/2015 05:16 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote:
I agree with Gavin
You would, of course.
Bitcoin can support a large scale and it
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Well, centralization of mining is already terrible. I see no reason why we
should encourage making it worse.
I see constant assertions that node count, mining centralisation, developers
Forgot to include the list.
From: Jean-Paul Kogelman jeanpaulkogel...@me.com
Date: July 31, 2015 at 4:02:20 PM PDT
To: Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc
Cc: mi...@bitcoins.info
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn't
temporary
I wrote about this a
There is a summary of the proposals in my previous mail at
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009808.html
I think there could be a compromise between Gavin's BIP101 and
Pieter's proposal (called BIP103 here). Below I'm trying to play
with the parameters,
On Friday 31. July 2015 03.21.07 Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:
If I was a miner and you want me to include your transaction for free,
you're asking me to give you money
What?
Ask yourself; why do miners include transactions at all? What it the incentive
if there really is only less than
I agree with Gavin - whilst it's great that a Blockstream employee has
finally made a realistic proposal (i.e. not let's all use Lightning) -
this BIP is virtually the same as keeping the 1mb cap.
Well, centralization of mining is already terrible. I see no reason why we
should encourage making
23 matches
Mail list logo
