[bitcoin-dev] Simplifying the blocksize limit debate

2015-08-17 Thread Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev
I'm going to list a few assumtions / observations / understandings around this debate. Please point out the incorrect ones. * Most developers here agree that 1 MB is not a magic constant and that the limit has to increase eventually. * Most developers want to reduce the amount of policy decisions

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT

2015-08-17 Thread Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:13 PM, GC wrote: > Dave, > > “ … highly skilled psychological warfare agents ..” > > Paranoia, much? > > Well, I respect your characterization of it as paranoia, sure. If you check out the #1 podcast in higher education on podomatic.com, you may find that it's more awa

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-17 Thread Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Would we discuss his > posting if he would not claim to be Satoshi? There are a lot of smart > people on this list, which publish occasionally quite useful ideas. I actually learned something important and infulential in my

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT

2015-08-17 Thread GC via bitcoin-dev
Dave, ³ Š highly skilled psychological warfare agents ..² Paranoia, much? Or perhaps the ³enemies" of Bitcoin are just sitting patiently, waiting for it to collapse in time due to its internal contradictions. From: Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev Reply-To: Dave Scotese Date: Tuesday, 18 Augu

Re: [bitcoin-dev] libconsensus assertion fails if used in multiple threads

2015-08-17 Thread Cory Fields via bitcoin-dev
Back to the list (from github) in case anyone finds this via Google. The patch that I posted here a few days ago did not fix the issue for Tamas. I spent some time tracking down this edge-case because libbitcoinconsensus needs to be as bullet-proof as possible. Thanks to Tamas for creating a bare

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-17 Thread Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev
At http://media.scmagazine.com/documents/127/virtual_currency_rules_31557.pdf, section 200.3(c)(2) lists "consumers that utilize Virtual Currency solely for the purchase or sale of goods or services or for investment purposes" as "Persons [who] are exempt from the licensing requirements". Who else

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT

2015-08-17 Thread Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev
Three things: 1) Hostility is generally the result of perceived hostility. If you assume the best intentions of another person, you will eventually find yourself in one of two places. Either you will find truth with that person (becuase they are also seeking it), or you will drive them away (bec

[bitcoin-dev] BIP: Using Median time-past as endpoint for locktime calculations

2015-08-17 Thread Thomas Kerin via bitcoin-dev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi all, In collaboration with Mark Friedenbach, we have drawn up a proposal for using the median time of the past 11 blocks in locktime calculations. BIP: XX Title: Median time-past as endpoint for lock-time calculations Author: Thomas Keri

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Incentives to run full nodes

2015-08-17 Thread Joseph Poon via bitcoin-dev
Hi Chris, I don't speak for Peter, but here's my opinion on the matter anyway. On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 05:44:56PM -0400, Chris Pacia via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Can you explain how the spv node fails against an attacker with a > non-trivial amount of hash power where a full node doesn't? To attack an

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP [104]: Replace Transaction Fees with Data, Discussion Draft 0.2.9

2015-08-17 Thread Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev
While Peter Todd's public mention on social media was likely meant to be disparaging, I'll take the contribution of adding 'data mining' to the title in future updates of the draft - thank you. It might be ironic that he posted the remark on Twitter, where his message will be aggregated and sold b

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Incentives to run full nodes

2015-08-17 Thread Chris Pacia via bitcoin-dev
On Aug 17, 2015 5:29 PM, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >From the point of view of a > wallet, it's not very secure to use Hearn-style SPV mode, and volunteers > running full nodes doesn't help things. Sybil attacking the IP address > space is pretty ea

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A

2015-08-17 Thread Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev
On 08/16/15 23:22, Andrew LeCody via bitcoin-dev wrote: > 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 Bitco

[bitcoin-dev] Incentives to run full nodes

2015-08-17 Thread Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 12:43:54PM -0500, Satoshi Nakamoto via bitcoin-dev wrote: > They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to > be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new > knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my earl

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-17 Thread Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev
Am 17.08.2015 um 21:03 schrieb Warren Togami Jr.: > This bitcoin-dev list restarted with an empty subscriber list on June > 21st, 2015. So whoever posted from sato...@vistomail.com > subscribed and verified the address > recently. Do you propose that we manually app

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-17 Thread Theo Chino via bitcoin-dev
Hello, I might have a "crazy" simple solution. >From the literature I read, it seems that Satochi has the keys that would authenticate him using Bitcoin. HBO John Oliver's program might have given me (and hopefully others) the brilliant idea to protect the Bitcoin network from the overzealous rea

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP-draft] CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY - An opcode for relative locktime

2015-08-17 Thread Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev
Please note there is now a PR for this BIP[1] and also a pull request for the opcode CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY in Bitcoin Core[2]. [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/179 [2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6564 ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoi

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-17 Thread Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev
His account on that website was also compromised. 2015-08-17 21:02 GMT+02:00 Anon Moto via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > Satoshi, > > As much as I want to believe this is you it's very difficult to ignore the > fact that Vistomail could have been hacked and I'm currently

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-17 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> enter the mining game. A bit like making P2Pool the one and only pool >> allowed on the network. > > Thats been suggested, though scalablity reasons make this hard: in the > P2Pool design there is a substantial tradeoff in

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-17 Thread Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On 15 August 2015 at 18:43, Satoshi Nakamoto via bitcoin-dev > wrote: >> >> I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of >> relying solely on altruism. > > > Is he talking about "full nodes" i.e. valida

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-17 Thread Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 05:18:02PM +, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > To avoid such discussions. > > You seem to be assuming that there is specific reason to believe the > message is unauthentic. This is

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-17 Thread Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev
On 15 August 2015 at 18:43, Satoshi Nakamoto via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of > relying solely on altruism. > Is he talking about "full nodes" i.e. validating-only, or nodes in the sense of the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-17 Thread Warren Togami Jr. via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 4:40 AM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > That made it to the news and is now discussed in various places. Could > you please delete Satoshis old email addresses from the list and block > them? Sorry to post this to all mem

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-17 Thread Anon Moto via bitcoin-dev
Satoshi, As much as I want to believe this is you it's very difficult to ignore the fact that Vistomail could have been hacked and I'm currently speaking to a troll. Can you copy and paste what you wrote above, to http://p2pfoundation.ning.com as well, like how you did during the Dorian fiasco?

Re: [bitcoin-dev] That email was almost certainly not the real Satoshi

2015-08-17 Thread Warren Togami Jr. via bitcoin-dev
Dude, while it does appear plausible that the box is insecure, is it truly warranted to jump to any particular conclusion from that alone? What if all the open ports is just because it is a honey pot? On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Jonathan Wilkins via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfou

[bitcoin-dev] That email was almost certainly not the real Satoshi

2015-08-17 Thread Jonathan Wilkins via bitcoin-dev
I'm sure that most people here were skeptical, but FWIW, the server that hosts vistomail.com is a mess, it's a Plesk box with more than a couple of services with dubious security histories. MailEnable smtpd, MSRPC, RDP, see for yourself: Most likely someone popped the box and is entertaining thems

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP [104]: Replace Transaction Fees with Data, Discussion Draft 0.2.9

2015-08-17 Thread Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev
> @btc Drak, noted, thanks. > > 1. Updated - removed reference to self ascribed [104] > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBX3hCekFRSUVySWs/view?usp=sharing > > > @Angel Leon > > 2. Privacy issues are clearly covered. > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Btc Drak wrote: > >> You can

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-17 Thread Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev
For the record I would like to share my technical analysis of the Satoshi email which I wrote in a pastebin (http://pastebin.com/Ct5M8fa2) a few days ago. 1. The email is the one used by Satoshi to announce Bitcoin in the first place. http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-October/014

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-17 Thread Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev
In times of controversy or flamewar on the Linux kernel mailing list, occasionally fake "Linus Torvalds" or other spoofed posts would appear. It is the nature of email. Just ignore it. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org h

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-17 Thread Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev wrote: > To avoid such discussions. You seem to be assuming that there is specific reason to believe the message is unauthentic. This is not the case. Contrary to other poster's claims, if the message had been PGP signed that mig

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP [104]: Replace Transaction Fees with Data, Discussion Draft 0.2.9

2015-08-17 Thread Angel Leon via bitcoin-dev
so you want us to, (i) at the moment of payment decide wether to pay a tx fee, or to include some data about what the transaction is about... (ii) and (iii) are out of the question as you'd be forcing people to not have privacy, which is one of the main reasons people use bitcoin, just paying like

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-17 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Oliver Egginger wrote: > Am 17.08.2015 um 18:32 schrieb Jorge Timón: >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Oliver Egginger wrote: >>> Am 17.08.2015 um 13:44 schrieb Jorge Timón: On Aug 17, 2015 1:40 PM, "Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev" >>>

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP [104]: Replace Transaction Fees with Data, Discussion Draft 0.2.9

2015-08-17 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
Did you self-assigned a bip number? https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0001.mediawiki Anyway, from your document: "The existing (2015) Big Data analysis market is valued at around $125bn according to market research firm IDC. As the Bitcoin block chain replaces existing payment sy

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-17 Thread Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev
Am 17.08.2015 um 18:32 schrieb Jorge Timón: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Oliver Egginger wrote: >> Am 17.08.2015 um 13:44 schrieb Jorge Timón: >>> >>> On Aug 17, 2015 1:40 PM, "Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev" >>> >> > wrote: That made it to

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT

2015-08-17 Thread Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
I should add that in the interest of peace and goodwill, I extend an offer to both Mike and Gavin to make their grievances heard…but only on the condition that we make a good effort to avoid misrepresentation and misreading of the other side’s intentions. > On Aug 17, 2015, at 9:37 AM, Eric Lom

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP [104]: Replace Transaction Fees with Data, Discussion Draft 0.2.9

2015-08-17 Thread Angel Leon via bitcoin-dev
>"By increasing the size of blocks, transaction fees may not be available to supplement mining revenue and so those who do not have access to cheap or free power to mine;" why? wouldn't a bigger block size actually allow for more transactions per block, therefore more fees to be collected, and the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-17 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Oliver Egginger wrote: > Am 17.08.2015 um 13:44 schrieb Jorge Timón: >> >> On Aug 17, 2015 1:40 PM, "Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev" >> > > wrote: >>> That made it to the news and is now discussed in various places. Co

[bitcoin-dev] BIP [104]: Replace Transaction Fees with Data, Discussion Draft 0.2.9

2015-08-17 Thread Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev
Hello, Here we propose a long-term solution to replace mining rewards and transactions fees. BIP [104] is currently a discussion draft only. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBSXpoUjRkc01QUGc/view?usp=sharing Views and feedback welcome. Regards, Ahmed ___

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT

2015-08-17 Thread Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
> On Aug 17, 2015, at 6:34 AM, NxtChg via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > Great, so how about you go tell theymos to stop censoring XT posts and > banning the other side on /r/Bitcoin? > > Let users decide what Bitcoin is or isn't. FWIW, I don’t think what theymos did is very constructive.I unders

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Minimum Block Size

2015-08-17 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
One could think that this could help with things like SPV mining, but miners can just pay to themselves to follow the minimum size block rule without risking anything. As long as they have a singled matured satoshi they can just pay to themselves with it as many times as they need in the same block

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Draft BIP : fixed-schedule block size increase

2015-08-17 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Tier Nolan wrote: > - Miner vote to decide soft limit (lowest size ignoring bottom 20% but 1MB > minimum) I don't think is all that interesting to make miners vote on lower limit. Say the community wants to reduce the size to limit mining centralization, it's not

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Draft BIP : fixed-schedule block size increase

2015-08-17 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Ross Nicoll wrote: > I don't think essentially replacing most of Testnet with a specialised test > chain is a good idea, but this might be a good time to consider a 4th test > network with very large blocks from genesis onwards. You may be interested in this patch

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Draft BIP : fixed-schedule block size increase

2015-08-17 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Ross Nicoll wrote: > Potentially daft question, why not use a minimum height? Yes, it's > imprecise, but over an extended period of time they're good enough IMHO. > > I'd have to do more careful calculations to confirm, but block 388,000 > should be about right as

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT

2015-08-17 Thread NxtChg via bitcoin-dev
Eric, >In the entire history of Bitcoin we've never attempted anything even closely >resembling a hard fork like what's being proposed here. These concerns are understandable. What's hard to understand is why he, he and he get to decide what is more risky - hitting the limit or forking for larg

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

2015-08-17 Thread Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 17 August 2015 07:49:21 GMT-07:00, BitMinter operator via bitcoin-dev wrote: >I don't think mining pools will immediately make blocks as big as >possible if the hard limit is raised. Note that XT includes a patch that sets the soft limit to b

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT

2015-08-17 Thread Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
> On Aug 17, 2015, at 8:03 AM, Levin Keller wrote: > > Dear Eric, > > thank you for sharing your thoughts. > > It obviously boils down to political beliefs, not so much technical > arguments. I understand that you are in favor of a "guided decentralization" > and you are most happily invited

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT

2015-08-17 Thread Levin Keller via bitcoin-dev
Dear Eric, thank you for sharing your thoughts. It obviously boils down to political beliefs, not so much technical arguments. I understand that you are in favor of a "guided decentralization" and you are most happily invited to follow this path. I don't want to be on it. I want total decentralis

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT

2015-08-17 Thread GC via bitcoin-dev
Adam, While greatly appreciating your prior efforts in crypto-ccy R&D and current efforts for Blockstream, its not a plus for your reputation to be using emotive terms like ³attack², ³fork war" and throwing so much FUD into the developer email channel directly after Eric¹s email. We would appreci

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

2015-08-17 Thread BitMinter operator via bitcoin-dev
On 12.08.15 11.45, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote: > 1) Potential indirect consequence of rising fees. > 2) Software problem independent of a concrete block size that needs to > be solved anyway, often specific to Bitcoin Core (ie other > implementations, say libbitcoin may not necessarily share

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT

2015-08-17 Thread Adam Back via bitcoin-dev
Thank you Eric for saying what needs to be said. Starting a fork war is just not constructive and there are multiple proposals being evaluated here. I think that one thing that is not being so much focussed on is Bitcoin-XT is both a hard-fork and a soft-fork. It's a hard-fork on Bitcoin full-no

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT

2015-08-17 Thread Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
Levin, The hope is that eventually the network will be sufficiently resilient and robust to be able to handle anything that’s thrown at it. But it’s still a baby…and this is a serious problem indeed, because on the one hand we don’t want any central authority but on the other it still needs som

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT

2015-08-17 Thread Levin Keller via bitcoin-dev
Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev schrieb am Mo., 17. Aug. 2015 um 16:03 Uhr: > NxtChg, > > In the entire history of Bitcoin we’ve never attempted anything even > closely resembling a hard fork like what’s being proposed here. > > Many of us have wanted to push our own hard-forking changes to the > p

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT

2015-08-17 Thread Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
NxtChg, In the entire history of Bitcoin we’ve never attempted anything even closely resembling a hard fork like what’s being proposed here. Many of us have wanted to push our own hard-forking changes to the protocol…and have been frustrated because of the inability to do so. This inability is

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT

2015-08-17 Thread NxtChg via bitcoin-dev
>We should have the highest respect for what these people are doing, and we >should try to do something constructive, not waste time with anger and >disrespect. Why, exactly, should I have any respect for what these people are doing (and supposedly not have any respect for what the other side

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Draft BIP : fixed-schedule block size increase

2015-08-17 Thread Clément Elbaz via bitcoin-dev
The "only bigblock" patch you want is actually available here : https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks Le lun. 17 août 2015 à 15:16, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> a écrit : > One of the comments made by the mining pools is that they won't

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Draft BIP : fixed-schedule block size increase

2015-08-17 Thread Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev
One of the comments made by the mining pools is that they won't run XT because it is "experimental". Has there been any consideration to making available a version of XT with only the blocksize changes? The least "experimental" version would be one that makes the absolute minimum changes to core.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT

2015-08-17 Thread Vali Zero via bitcoin-dev
Hi, If you want to write such baseless acusations and inflamatory phrases, please do it somewhere else. We should have the highest respect for what these people are doing, and we should try to do something constructive, not waste time with anger and disrespect. Nobody should be forced to do an

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap

2015-08-17 Thread Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Rodney Morris via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I haven't run any statistics or simulations, but I'm concerned that the > interplay between the random distribution of transaction arrival and the > random distribution of block times

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap

2015-08-17 Thread Angel Leon via bitcoin-dev
I've been sharing a similar solution for the past 2 weeks. I think 2016 blocks is too much of a wait, I think we should look at the mean block size during the last 60-120 minutes instead and avert any crisis caused by transactional spikes that could well be caused by organic use of the network (Mad

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A

2015-08-17 Thread Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
Or can’t you create a transaction that’s still within the op count and sig ops limits but is larger than 1MB? > On Aug 17, 2015, at 5:29 AM, Andrew LeCody via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > Wouldn't that require a fork that lasts for more than 100 blocks? > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015, 01:43 Peter Todd

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A

2015-08-17 Thread Andrew LeCody via bitcoin-dev
Wouldn't that require a fork that lasts for more than 100 blocks? On Mon, Aug 17, 2015, 01:43 Peter Todd wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > > > On 16 August 2015 17:03:35 GMT-07:00, Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >T

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap

2015-08-17 Thread Rodney Morris via bitcoin-dev
Words cannot capture how much I wish Satoshi had put logic like this (or even just a simple block size doubling every reward halving) in place when he put in the "temporary" 1MB anti-spam block size limit... I see problems to this approach. The biggest one I see is that a miner with 11% of hash p

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-17 Thread Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev
Am 17.08.2015 um 13:44 schrieb Jorge Timón: > > On Aug 17, 2015 1:40 PM, "Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev" > > wrote: >> That made it to the news and is now discussed in various places. Could >> you please delete Satoshis old email addresses from the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-17 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
On Aug 17, 2015 1:40 PM, "Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > That made it to the news and is now discussed in various places. Could > you please delete Satoshis old email addresses from the list and block > them? Sorry to post this to all members but

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-17 Thread Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev
Am 15.08.2015 um 19:43 schrieb Satoshi Nakamoto via bitcoin-dev: > I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. > I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve > widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.

[bitcoin-dev] Fork Post-Mortem?

2015-08-17 Thread Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev
A post mortem for the 2013 fork was released as a BIP. Was an equivalent published for this year's fork? ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Miners are struggling with blocks far smaller than 750KB blocks and resorting to SPV mining

2015-08-17 Thread Luv Khemani via bitcoin-dev
It could be laziness but i doubt it, especially when the business is so competitive and margins ever shrinking.Half a million dollars in revenue mean little if your running costs are also in the same region. Also apologies for the bad formatting, outlook must have screwed it up. EmptyBlock /Time

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap

2015-08-17 Thread Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Patrick Strateman via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Nobody is going to click that... I guess I am nobody. Here's a copy of the text:- *Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap * *Assumpt

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT

2015-08-17 Thread NxtChg via bitcoin-dev
>Announcing Not-BitcoinXT >https://github.com/xtbit/notbitcoinxt#not-bitcoin-xt > "This version can be used to protect the status quo until real technical > consensus is formed about the blocksize." > "...real technical consensus..." You mean the bunch of self-proclaimed Bitcoin wizards, who d

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap

2015-08-17 Thread Patrick Strateman via bitcoin-dev
Nobody is going to click that... On 08/17/2015 02:44 AM, Upal Chakraborty via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I have tried to solve the maximum block size debate, depending on the > previous block size calculation. > > Requesting for comment - http://upalc.com/maxblocksize.php > > > _

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap

2015-08-17 Thread Levin Keller via bitcoin-dev
Interesting. I am writing down something similar. Will share soon. Upal Chakraborty via bitcoin-dev schrieb am Mo., 17. Aug. 2015 um 11:45 Uhr: > I have tried to solve the maximum block size debate, depending on the > previous block size calculation. > > Requesting for comment - http://upalc.com

[bitcoin-dev] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap

2015-08-17 Thread Upal Chakraborty via bitcoin-dev
I have tried to solve the maximum block size debate, depending on the previous block size calculation. Requesting for comment - http://upalc.com/maxblocksize.php ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfounda

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Miners are struggling with blocks far smaller than 750KB blocks and resorting to SPV mining

2015-08-17 Thread jl2012 via bitcoin-dev
The traffic between the pool server and individual hashers is far busier than 50kB/30s. If their bandwidth is so limited, hashers would have switched to other pools already. All these data may prove is they have very bad mining codes. For example, their hashers may not be required to update th

[bitcoin-dev] Miners are struggling with blocks far smaller than 750KB blocks and resorting to SPV mining

2015-08-17 Thread Luv Khemani via bitcoin-dev
Hi all, I previously mentioned in a post that i believe that technically nodes are capable of handling blocks an order of magnitude larger than the current blocksize limit, the only missing thing was an incentive to run them. I have been monitoring the blockchain for the past couple of weeks a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT

2015-08-17 Thread Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 The fun thing about this, is you only need >25% of hashing power running Not-BitcoinXT to screw over the miners running XT, as XT blocks are valid Bitcoin blocks if they're on a valid Bitcoin chain. 75% upgrade thresholds have a lot of issues...