Re: [bitcoin-dev] CLTV/CSV/etc. deployment considerations due to XT/Not-BitcoinXT miners

2015-08-19 Thread Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev
Wait, why did Bitcoin-XT use that nVersion??? Definitely option 3 is much cleaner technically, and it would be nice to have that code implemented, but I'd be rather concerned about the size of the fork ballooning. It's already four separate features in one fork, which seems pretty big, even if

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an experimental hardfork?

2015-08-19 Thread odinn via bitcoin-dev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/19/2015 04:06 AM, Jorge Timón wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:14 PM, odinn odinn.cyberguerri...@riseup.net wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Firstly, XT is controversial, not uncontroversial; XT it's just a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A solution to increase the incentive of running a node

2015-08-19 Thread Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev
On 19 August 2015 at 13:44, Jameson Lopp jameson.l...@gmail.com wrote: It's possible to check that a transaction is cryptographically valid without having any blockchain data available; are you referring to a different type of validation? It seems laborious to enumerate all the validations

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A solution to increase the incentive of running a node

2015-08-19 Thread Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev
On 19 August 2015 at 12:42, Jameson Lopp jameson.l...@gmail.com wrote: If you can actually come up with a technical solution that allows for a node operator to prove to the rest of the network that they are running an honest full node that hosts the entire blockchain, then you can move forward

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A solution to increase the incentive of running a node

2015-08-19 Thread Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev
If operating as an SPV node then it can check the transactions by querying other nodes. On an unrelated note, it sounds like your proposal will significantly increase the data size of every transaction, which will create even more contention for block space. - Jameson On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A solution to increase the incentive of running a node

2015-08-19 Thread Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: Bitcoin is imploding due to a failure of consensus. There has been a failure of consensus on how to fix the design flaw evinced by the block size fiasco. I disagree, but this isn't a

[bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core versus XT observations

2015-08-19 Thread Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev
1.) Most people are running XT as a vote for bigger blocks and not because they specifically support BIP101. If Core supported bigger blocks, most XT users would switch back to Core and XT would die. 2.) In this high stakes game of poker, XT just went all in, but Core still has the far better

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core versus XT observations

2015-08-19 Thread Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev
4.) Investors hate uncertainty, and the blocksize issue is adding a lot of uncertainty right now, ... That is true VC investors and people starting companies. People who invest directly in Bitcoin love all this stuff. A few weeks back a bunch of stories quoting nonsense spouted by Bitcoin

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an experimental hardfork?

2015-08-19 Thread jl2012 via bitcoin-dev
odinn via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-08-19 07:25 寫到: The big problem is BIP101 being deployed as a Schism hardfork. This is certainly a problem. No, BitcoinXT won't become a Schism hardfork, or may be just for a few days, at most. There is one, and only one scenario that BitcoinXT will win:

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

2015-08-19 Thread Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev
As jl2012 indicated, this is an insufficient analysis. You cannot assume that because X time passed since the last block, the miner's internal block maker has updated the template, and from there, is shipped out to the hashers in the field. Further, even if you update the block template at time

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an experimental hardfork?

2015-08-19 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:25 PM, odinn odinn.cyberguerri...@riseup.net wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/19/2015 04:06 AM, Jorge Timón wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:14 PM, odinn odinn.cyberguerri...@riseup.net wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash:

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an experimental hardfork?

2015-08-19 Thread Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:22 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: Will the adoption of BitcoinXT lead by miners? No, it won't. Actually, Chinese miners who control 60% of the network has already said that they would not adopt XT. So they must not be the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XTs Tor IP blacklist downloading system has significant privacy leaks.

2015-08-19 Thread Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
The code was peer reviewed, in the XT project. I didn't bother submitting other revisions to Core, obviously, as it was already rejected. The quantity of incorrect statements in this thread is quite ridiculous. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A

2015-08-19 Thread s7r via bitcoin-dev
Hello Jorge, Eric, With all this noise on the -dev mail list I had to implement application level filters so I can treat with priority posts from certain people, you are on that list. While I agree with your arguments, I think it is _very_ important to highlight some things. I am neither for the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-19 Thread Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:22:32AM -0700, Simon Liu via bitcoin-dev wrote: Olivier Janssens claims that one of your colleagues is asking for Gavin to be removed from his position. Is this true?

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CLTV/CSV/etc. deployment considerations due to XT/Not-BitcoinXT miners

2015-08-19 Thread Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Btc Drak btcd...@gmail.com wrote: In our case for Bitcoin Core, option 2 we use nVersion=8, apply a bitmask of 0xdff8 thus: if ((block.nVersion ~0x2007) = 4 CBlockIndex::IsSuperMajority(...)) { //...} With nVersion=8, but using comparison =4

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core versus XT observations

2015-08-19 Thread Felipe Micaroni Lalli via bitcoin-dev
On 19/08/2015 09:24, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev wrote: 5.) Not-BitcoinXT is a really terrible idea. Mike has proven time and time again that he will not blink or back down. The chances of Not-BitcoinXT gaining 25% of the hashrate are pretty much nil, so in effect, all Not-BitcoinXT will do is

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

2015-08-19 Thread Upal Chakraborty via bitcoin-dev
I think, keeping the reduction part is necessary to have it demand driven. Otherwise, we could just increase it to a fixed size. If the max cap is high, but there is not enough Tx in the mempool, then after one big block many will go small. This will not be good when block reward become small and

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XTs Tor IP blacklist downloading system has significant privacy leaks.

2015-08-19 Thread Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: The code was peer reviewed, in the XT project. I didn't bother submitting other revisions to Core, obviously, as it was already rejected. The quantity of incorrect statements in this thread

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-19 Thread Santino Napolitano via bitcoin-dev
Gavin has been very clear about the fact that he's on vacation. I'm not sure what you want Mike to say. It's obvious the Bitcoin Core developer pitchforks are out for him so there isn't really anything he can possibly say which will be constructively received on this highly adversarial and

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-19 Thread Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote: Normal GitHub users submitting pull-reqs to Bitcoin Core can't delete other users' comments on their own pull-reqs... IMO that's an abuse of the pull-req process, and in turn, Gavin Andresens's commit access rights for the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-19 Thread Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
On Aug 19, 2015, at 12:12 PM, Santino Napolitano via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: Gavin has been very clear about the fact that he's on vacation. I'm not sure what you want Mike to say. It's obvious the Bitcoin Core developer pitchforks are out for him so

Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev list etiquette

2015-08-19 Thread Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
Alex, With all due respect, right now the biggest challenge facing Bitcoin is not technical but political. I would love to see this list go back to technical discussions, but unfortunately, until this political stuff is resolved, even technical discussion is purely philosophical as there’s

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an experimental hardfork?

2015-08-19 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Danny Thorpe danny.tho...@gmail.com wrote: How do big-block testnet nodes running this 6382 rev recognize each other on the peer network? If I set up a 2MB block limit testnet node and -addnode another 2MB block testnet node (say, JornC's node) to it, and my

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Separated bitcoin-consensus mailing list (was Re: Bitcoin XT Fork)

2015-08-19 Thread Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Jeff Garzik jgar...@gmail.com wrote: bitcoin-dev for protocol discussion and bitcoin-core for Bitcoin Core discussion? Well -dev or both, I dont particularly see a difference at the moment, and establishing two lists isnt really going to make a difference so

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-19 Thread odinn via bitcoin-dev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 re. Gavin and commit access On 08/19/2015 12:15 PM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote: Normal GitHub users submitting pull-reqs to Bitcoin Core can't delete other users' comments

[bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev list etiquette

2015-08-19 Thread Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev
This is a message that I wrote and had hoped that all the core devs would sign on to, but I failed to finish organizing it. So I'll just say it from myself. There has been a valuable discussion over the last several months regarding a hard fork with respect to block size. However the sheer

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-19 Thread Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
Unfortunately, I think that from a PR angle, removing Gavin from commit privileges right now will probably play into his hand. Sadly. Say what you will regarding Gavin and Mike’s technical merits, they’ve been quite clever on the PR front. Framing this issue as “obstructionism from the core

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-19 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: [...] core devs” and relying on the fact that many people out there can’t seem to tell the difference between a source code fork and a blockchain fork. And this is precisely why we

Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev list etiquette

2015-08-19 Thread Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Gary Mulder via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: So guys, do we need a BIP to address the existence of XT and its possible impact to the block chain? I believe there is BIP99 that addresses hard forks.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-19 Thread Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev
[cross-posted to libbitcoin] On 08/19/2015 03:00 PM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Eric Lombrozo elombr...@gmail.com wrote: But the consensus code should NOT be subject to the same commit policies…and we should make an effort to separate the two clearly.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A

2015-08-19 Thread Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 03:45:48PM -0700, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev wrote: Wouldnt the experience for SPV nodes be chaotic? If the full nodes are 50:50 XT and bitcoin core, then SPV clients would connect at random and because XT and core will diverge immediately after activation. Actually

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-19 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
By the way, now that I remember why I subscribed to the libbitcoin list I want to share it with you. I met Amir Taaki in person in a spanish hackmeeting and had the chance to talk a lot with him, very interesting person whose input in this blocksize matter I would greatly appreciate. He explained

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A

2015-08-19 Thread Adam Back via bitcoin-dev
Wouldnt the experience for SPV nodes be chaotic? If the full nodes are 50:50 XT and bitcoin core, then SPV clients would connect at random and because XT and core will diverge immediately after activation. Adam On 19 August 2015 at 15:28, Jorge Timón bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-19 Thread Simon Liu via bitcoin-dev
Yes, you're right, the Bitcoin Foundation is facing many challenges, but that's an entirely different discussion. The question in hand is this: was the request to remove Gavin made by an individual of their own volition, reflecting their own personal opinion, or was it made on behalf of the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev list etiquette

2015-08-19 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 12:25 AM, Gary Mulder via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: So guys, do we need a BIP to address the existence of XT and its possible impact to the block chain? The potential impacts of Schism/controversial/contentious hardforks are shortly covered

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-19 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Eric Voskuil e...@voskuil.org wrote: [cross-posted to libbitcoin] On 08/19/2015 03:00 PM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Eric Lombrozo elombr...@gmail.com wrote: But the consensus code should NOT be subject to the same

Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev list etiquette

2015-08-19 Thread Gary Mulder via bitcoin-dev
So guys, do we need a BIP to address the existence of XT and its possible impact to the block chain? ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

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

2015-08-19 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:27 PM, Joseph Poon joseph@lightning.network wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 09:21:36AM -0700, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev wrote: If anyone feels strongly about this, please speak up. On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:37 AM, Jorge Tim??n

Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev list etiquette

2015-08-19 Thread Theo Chino via bitcoin-dev
And this is why I love Bitcoin, politics + technical = all in one. Regards, Theo Chino https://www.facebook.com/groups/557495624389384 (politics in NYS about bitcoin.) http://frenchmorning.com/en/2014/08/18/french-robin-hood-bitcoin-new-york On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Hector Chu via

Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev list etiquette

2015-08-19 Thread Theo Chino via bitcoin-dev
Nelson, Talking politics, Devs do day and night, however politics is also about knocking on door and not sitting behind a keyboard writing a perl script to spam the politicians with the same content. Politics is about maneuvering to be in a position to get the elected official to do what you want

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

2015-08-19 Thread Joseph Poon via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 09:21:36AM -0700, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev wrote: If anyone feels strongly about this, please speak up. On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:37 AM, Jorge Tim??n bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: I repeated my nit on

Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev list etiquette

2015-08-19 Thread Nelson Castillo via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Theo Chino via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: And this is why I love Bitcoin, politics + technical = all in one. If you think developers do not talk politics go read LKML... Politics are inevitable. I think the I don't know enough to

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-19 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Eric Lombrozo elombr...@gmail.com wrote: But the consensus code should NOT be subject to the same commit policies…and we should make an effort to separate the two clearly. And we should find a way to communicate the difference succinctly and clearly to

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A

2015-08-19 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:41 PM, s7r s...@sky-ip.org wrote: Hello Jorge, Eric, With all this noise on the -dev mail list I had to implement application level filters so I can treat with priority posts from certain people, you are on that list. While I agree with your arguments, I think it is

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Separated bitcoin-consensus mailing list (was Re: Bitcoin XT Fork)

2015-08-19 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:44 AM, NxtChg via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: Number of posts, August: 72, Jorge Timón Certainly I have talked to much this month, my apologies. I believe most of my posts (if not all) were on-topic but I could still had repeated

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

2015-08-19 Thread GC via bitcoin-dev
Can this anecdote and similar be removed from the mailing list. Possibly one of the reddits is a better place for this kind of thing. On 20/8/15 7:56 am, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: By the way, now that I remember why I subscribed to the libbitcoin

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an experimental hardfork?

2015-08-19 Thread odinn via bitcoin-dev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Firstly, XT is controversial, not uncontroversial; Second, this issue has been beat to death quite a while ago https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/899#issuecomment-117 815987 Third, it poses major risks as a non-peer reviewed alt with

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Separated bitcoin-consensus mailing list (was Re: Bitcoin XT Fork)

2015-08-19 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Btc Drak btcd...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc wrote: Apparently that existed already: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/ But technical people run away from noise while non-technical people chase them

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an experimental hardfork?

2015-08-19 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:14 PM, odinn odinn.cyberguerri...@riseup.net wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Firstly, XT is controversial, not uncontroversial; XT it's just a software fork. BIP101 (as currently implemented in Bitcoin XT) is a Schism hardfork (or an altcoin),

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CLTV/CSV/etc. deployment considerations due to XT/Not-BitcoinXT miners

2015-08-19 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
I don't think just using version=4 for cltv and friends would be a problem if it wasn't for the XT/nonXT issue. On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Btc Drak btcd...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Jorge Timón bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: Seems like 3 is

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

2015-08-19 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
I repeated my nit on https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/179 On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: Please note there is now a PR for this BIP[1] and also a pull request for the opcode CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY in Bitcoin Core[2].

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an experimental hardfork?

2015-08-19 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:34 PM, jl2...@xbt.hk wrote: You misunderstand my intention. The experiment is not about a random hardfork. It's about a block size increase hardfork. One of your goals is show the world that reaching consensus for a Bitcoin hardfork is possible, right? BIP99 can

[bitcoin-dev] Ensuring Users have Safe Software and Version

2015-08-19 Thread odinn via bitcoin-dev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Recently I was re-reading the following (which has been edited periodically): https://bitcoin.org/en/alerts It currently reads, There is no ongoing event on the Bitcoin network. However, in reading the most recent alert on that page, we are (it

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CLTV/CSV/etc. deployment considerations due to XT/Not-BitcoinXT miners

2015-08-19 Thread Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev
We can use nVersion 0x8 to signal support, while keeping the consensus rule as nVersion = 4, right? That way we don't waste a bit after this all clears up. On Aug 18, 2015 10:50 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: Deployment of the proposed CLTV, CSV,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT

2015-08-19 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:46 AM, NxtChg via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: Eric, FWIW... These are all good points and I agree with most of them. Yes, the block size debate is a lucky historical accident, which makes it easier for XT to pull off the split, but

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Separated bitcoin-consensus mailing list (was Re: Bitcoin XT Fork)

2015-08-19 Thread Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc wrote: Apparently that existed already: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/ But technical people run away from noise while non-technical people chase them wherever their voices sounds more loud. Regarding disruptors, if

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A

2015-08-19 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:02 AM, Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: I think that it is important to note that Bitcoin XT faces a natural uphill battle. Since it is possible to setup atomic inter-fork coin trades. I do not see how Bitcoin XT could

[bitcoin-dev] Separated bitcoin-consensus mailing list (was Re: Bitcoin XT Fork)

2015-08-19 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: I see no problem with Satoshi returning to participate in peer review. Bitcoin development has long since migrated from a single authority figure to a system of technical peer review

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an experimental hardfork?

2015-08-19 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:54 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: As I understand, there is already a consensus among core dev that block size should/could be raised. The remaining questions are how, when, how much, and how fast. These are the questions for

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an experimental hardfork?

2015-08-19 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Danny Thorpe via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: Ya, so? All that means is that the experiment might reach the hard fork tipping point faster than mainnet would. Verifying that the network can handle such transitions, and how larger