Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Mempool spam] Should we as developers reject non-standard Taproot transactions from full nodes?

enefit from things like stratumv2 and utreexo being rolled out first. > Thank you, > > Brad > > > > On 2023-05-08 09:37, Melvin Carvalho via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > > > po 8. 5. 2023 v 13:55 odesílatel Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Mempool spam] Should we as developers reject non-standard Taproot transactions from full nodes?

po 8. 5. 2023 v 13:55 odesílatel Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> napsal: > Hi guys, > > I think everyone on this list knows what has happened to the Bitcoin > mempool during the past 96 hours. Due to side projects such as BRC-20 > having such a high volume,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Ordinal Inscription Size Limits

pá 27. 1. 2023 v 13:47 odesílatel Robert Dickinson via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> napsal: > I'm curious what opinions exist and what actions might be taken by core > developers regarding storing unlimited amounts of NFT (or other?) content > as witness data

Re: [bitcoin-dev] What to expect in the next few weeks

On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 7:33 PM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > If the next few weeks go how I fear they will it could get messy. If you > care about Bitcoin's consensus rules I'd request you pay attention so you > can make an informed view on

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Reducing block reward via soft fork

On Mon, 24 May 2021 at 22:32, Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Before we can decide on tradeoffs that reduce security in favor of less > energy usage, or less inflation, or whatever goal you might have for > reducing (or delaying) coinbase rewards, we

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Reminder on the Purpose of BIPs

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 at 22:08, Greg Maxwell via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I endorse Harding's recommendations. On the point about mirroring, > one thing to keep in mind is that the other repositories may go > offline. > > Modification confusion could be avoided

Re: [bitcoin-dev] activation mechanism considerations

On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 10:07, John Rand via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Consensus is important for both taproot and separately for the activation > mechanism. There are more soft-forks that Bitcoin will need, so it is > important to achieve positive progress on

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Softfork proposal for minimum price of $50k USD/BTC

On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 02:32, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Certain parts of the community have been selling bitcoins for unreasonably > low prices. This has halted Bitcoin's valuation at $20k and even driven the > price down below $15k! However,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Total fees have almost crossed the block reward

On 21 December 2017 at 22:30, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > I asked adam back at hcpp how the block chain would be secured in the long > term, once the reward goes away. The base idea has always been that fees > would replace the block reward. > > At that time fees were

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Upgrading PoW algorithm

On 17 January 2018 at 23:31, Jefferson Carpenter via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Bitcoin's difficulty will be maxed out within about 400 years, by Moore's > law. (After that - supposing the software does not crash when difficulty > overflows - block time will

[bitcoin-dev] Total fees have almost crossed the block reward

I asked adam back at hcpp how the block chain would be secured in the long term, once the reward goes away. The base idea has always been that fees would replace the block reward. At that time fees were approximately 10% of the block reward, but have now reached 45%, with 50% potentially being