Re: [bitcoin-dev] A compromise between BIP101 and Pieter's proposal

2015-08-02 Thread odinn via bitcoin-dev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I am in favor of a more gradual (longer) period and a softforking solution... that is, more than 30 days of grace period (some period between 60 days and a year), ... ... and given the number of valid softforking proposals out there it seems to me

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP draft: Hardfork bit

2015-08-02 Thread Michael Ruddy via bitcoin-dev
I think your hardfork bit proposal is clever. It addresses the particular valid concern of re-org facing users of a fork that a small/near/fluctuating majority, or less, of mining power supported. While the economic majority argument may be enough on its own in that case, it still has some aspect

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A compromise between BIP101 and Pieter's proposal

2015-08-02 Thread Venzen Khaosan via bitcoin-dev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 +1 on every point, sipa On 08/02/2015 05:32 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: 2. Starting date: 30 days after 75% miner support, but not before 2016-01-12 00:00 UTC Rationale: A 30-day grace period is given to make sure everyone has

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A compromise between BIP101 and Pieter's proposal

2015-08-02 Thread Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev
2. Starting date: 30 days after 75% miner support, but not before 2016-01-12 00:00 UTC Rationale: A 30-day grace period is given to make sure everyone has enough time to follow. This is a compromise between 14 day in BIP101 and 1 year in BIP103. I tend to agree with BIP101. Even 1 year is

[bitcoin-dev] A reason we can all agree on to increase block size

2015-08-02 Thread Jim Phillips via bitcoin-dev
China is a communist country. It is no secret that all capitalist enterprises are essentially State controlled, or at the very least are subject to nationalization should the State deem it necessary. Most ASIC chips are manufactured in China, so they are cheap and accessible to Chinese miners.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A compromise between BIP101 and Pieter's proposal

2015-08-02 Thread Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev
It will help to assume that there is at least one group of evil people who are investing in Bitcon's demise. Not because there are, but because there might be. So let's assume they are making a set of a billion transactions, or a trillion, and maintaining currently-being-legitimately-used

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size following technological growth

2015-08-02 Thread Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:20:30PM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev Some things are not included yet, such as a testnet whose size runs ahead of the main chain, and the inclusion of Gavin's more accurate sigop checking after the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A reason we can all agree on to increase block size

2015-08-02 Thread Pindar Wong via bitcoin-dev
Dear Jim, Thank you for sharing your view w.r.t. the so called 'Chinese Miners'. Diversity of opinion, and mining, are IMHO both good and it's indeed a free world so others who wish to mine bitcoin should be encouraged to make the capital and technical investments to do so. May I ask what