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

Again, did you got a bip number asigned or did you self-assigned it yourself? On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Hello, > > In response to public and private comments and feedback, we have updated > this working draft. > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbh

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Censorship

This is off-topic here. Consensus critical changes (those aren't changes that Bitcoin Core developers can make unilaterally against the will of alternative implementations or users) and Bitcoin Core development are independent from bitcointalk.org and /r/bitcoin. And as you say, people can create c

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Libconsensus separated repository (was Bitcoin Core and hard forks)

I see the huge amount of sweat and love that went into core and it actually hurts to see that most is expended in friction and lack of a vision for the software architecture. To be concrete, this was my plan if dealing with the Core code base: 1) I'd consider the separation of networking and st

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size possible solution - to set minimum size

A minimum block size does nothing to prevent the problems that come from schism hardforks. But also a minimum block size can be trivially cheated as recently explained on this list: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010317.html "[...] miners can just pay to thems

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Libconsensus separated repository (was Bitcoin Core and hard forks)

One thing it occurs to me (and I don't know if this has been suggested before) we could do is separate the BIP process into at several distinct areas: 1) Commit structure changes/consensus rule change proposals - Consensus-building process (how are proposals debated, improved, vetted, and selected

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Libconsensus separated repository (was Bitcoin Core and hard forks)

I've been pushing for greater modularization since I first got into bitcoin. I got quickly frustrated when I was only able to get through very few things (i.e. moving core structure serialization classes to a separate unit not called main). Working on Bitcoin has an added layer of frustration that

[bitcoin-dev] Block size possible solution - to set minimum size

Hi, As I understand the main problem of the fork Core<->XT is possibility of double spending: -I run XT and spend my coins -it is written in 8mb block -Core does not accept this block -I run Core and spend my coins again -it is written in 1mb block -but XT accepts this block too so -in the XT block

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Censorship

I am not sure that this is on-topic for the bitcoin-dev mailing list, but it seems politically relevant enough that I'm going to respond. /r/bitcoin and bitcointalk.org are both discussion websites that pertain to a specific topic. All (or nearly all) discussion websites pertaining to a specific t

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Libconsensus separated repository (was Bitcoin Core and hard forks)

> On Aug 21, 2015, at 21:46, Jorge Timón wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Tamas Blummer > wrote: >> Every re-implementation, re-factoring even copy-paste introduces a risk of >> disagreement, >> but also open the chance of doing the work better, in the

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

Hello, In response to public and private comments and feedback, we have updated this working draft. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBOUVtOHJQdlhvUmc/view?usp=sharing Update highlights: 1. Specific clarifications on replacing the Coinbase subsidy and supplementing *and* not replacing