networks.
Bitcoin Core scales as O(N), where N is the number of transactions. Can we
do better than this while still achieving global consensus?
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 12:09:16PM -0400, Michael Naber wrote:
The goal
:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 27 June 2015 10:39:51 GMT-04:00, Michael Naber mickey...@gmail.com
wrote:
Compromise: Can we agree that raising the block size to a static 8MB
now
with a plan to increase it further should demand necessitate except in
the
special case
by hash-rate even today. That's
why Pieter posed the question - are we already at the policy limit -
maybe the blocks we're seeing are closely tracking policy limits, if
someone mapped that and asked miners by hash-rate etc.
On 30 June 2015 at 18:35, Michael Naber mickey...@gmail.com wrote:
Re
Bitcoin is globally aware global consensus.
It means every node both knows about and agrees on every transaction.
Do we need global awareness of every transaction to run a worldwide payment
network? Of course not! In fact the limits of today's technology probably would
not even allow it.
As you know I'm trying to lobby for a block size increase to a static 8MB.
I'm happy to try to get the testing done that people want done for this,
but I think the real crux of this issue is that we need to get consensus
that we intend to continually push the block size upward as bounded only by
Re: Why bother doubling capacity? So that we could have 2x more network
participants of course.
Re: No clear way to scaling beyond that: Computers are getting more capable
aren't they? We'll increase capacity along with hardware.
It's a good thing to scale the network if technology permits it.
consensus on the
criticality of the block size issue: do you agree, disagree, or not take a
side, and why?
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote
is trustlessness - being able
to transact without relying on third parties.
Adam
On 11 August 2015 at 22:18, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
The only reason why Bitcoin has grown the way it has, and in fact the
only
reason why we're all even here
11, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc wrote:
On Aug 11, 2015 8:55 PM, Michael Naber mickey...@gmail.com wrote:
It generally doesn't matter that every node validate your coffee
transaction, and those transactions can and will probably be moved onto
offchain solutions in order
Bitcoin has no elections; it has no courts. If not through attempting a
hard-fork, how should we properly resolve irreconcilable disagreements?
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Please take the lightning 101 discussion
All things considered, if people want to participate in a global consensus
network, and the technology exist to do it at a lower cost, then is it
sensible or even possible to somehow arbitrarily set the price of
participating in a global consensus network to be expensive? Can someone
please walk
How many nodes are necessary to ensure sufficient network reliability? Ten,
a hundred, a thousand? At what point do we hit the point of diminishing
returns, where adding extra nodes starts to have negligible impact on the
overall reliability of the system?
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:26 AM,
12 matches
Mail list logo
