Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hash of UTXO set as consensus-critical

On 19/09/15 15:11, Rune K. Svendsen wrote: > An honest miner is a miner that supports the network by building on top of > the best valid chain. A malicious miner is one who wants to disrupt the > Bitcoin network, not support it, for example by executing a 51% attack which > mines empty blocks on

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed new policy for transactions that depend on other unconfirmed transactions

Thanks for everyone's review. These policy changes have been merged in to master in 6654 , which just implements these limits and no mempool limiting yet. The default ancestor package size limit is 900kb not 1MB. Yes I think these limits are generous

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Weekly development meetings on IRC

Although the planning for this a bit far along now, one consideration I might add from experience on working with other transglobal IT projects is the effect of timezones on local mood/alertness/awareness etc. The guys at 9am pinging on their first coffee in the antipodes will be in a different mi

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Weekly development meetings on IRC

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 03:07:10AM +0200, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote: > Hello, > > At Monday's code sprint we had a good idea to schedule a regular developer > meeting in #bitcoin-dev. > > Attendance is of course voluntary, but it may be good to have a time that > many people are expected t

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Weekly development meetings on IRC

It is possible to softfork. Just use Iceland time. Iceland time = UTC without DST Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-09-18 16:34 寫到: Urgh... Can we hardfork time? It's clearly in need of an upgrade... On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Matt

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Bitcoin conference micro-report

On 9/21/2015 1:04 AM, Corey Haddad via bitcoin-dev wrote: > If it turns out that the blocksize divide is hinging on differing > developer views on the nature of the threat posed by governments, > perhaps it would be better to defer to people who specialize in that > area. ... ... > The main idea

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Version bits with timeout and delay.

Jorge Timón writes: > On Sep 20, 2015 10:58 PM, "Rusty Russell" wrote: >> >> Jorge Timón writes: >> > I disagree with the importance of this concern and old soft/hardforks > will >> > replace this activation mechanism with height, so that's an argument in >> > favor of using the height from the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Bitcoin conference micro-report

> > Does this conversation have to happen on-list? It seems to have wandered > incredibly far off-topic. > I understand, it does seem off topic. But . what was the topic again? All Jeff's mail and the followups seem to say is there was a meeting where some people (unnamed) agreed to do somethi

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Bitcoin conference micro-report

>Larger user base won't necessarily protect against governments if >we still have chokepoints they can go after. This is the critical confusion about Bitcoin decentralization, which leads to this whole recent mess of shouting at each other. Decentralization is _not_ a way to withstand an attac

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Version bits with timeout and delay.

On Sep 20, 2015 10:58 PM, "Rusty Russell" wrote: > > Jorge Timón writes: > > I disagree with the importance of this concern and old soft/hardforks will > > replace this activation mechanism with height, so that's an argument in > > favor of using the height from the start. This is "being discusse