In some rare occasions in everyday life, what matters is seconds. Like when
paying for parking in the car while some other cars are behind you in the
line. You don't want them to get upset.
I takes me tens of minutes to shop. But once you choose your merchandise
and your payment starts
Then I would suggest working on payment channel networks. No decrease of
the interblock time will ever compete with the approximately instant time
it takes to validate a microchannel payment.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner
sergio.d.ler...@gmail.com wrote:
In some rare
Please try to focus on constructive technical comments.
On 7 August 2015 at 23:12, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
What will the backlash be when people here that are pushing for off-chain-
transactions fail to produce a properly working alternative,
On Friday 7. August 2015 19.33.34 Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:
When the network runs out of capacity (when we hit the limit) do we
expect anything to happen apart from minimum market fees rising (above
zero)?
How many clients actually evict transactions from their mempool currently? If
On Friday 7. August 2015 20.10.48 Pieter Wuille wrote:
On Aug 7, 2015 7:50 PM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe people in the Bitcoin ecosystem will choose different
tradeoffs, and I believe that is OK-- people should be free to make those
tradeoffs.
I agree.
Actually I gave a cached answer earlier which on further review may need
updating. (Bad Mark!)
I presume by what's more likely to matter is seconds you are referencing
point of sale. As you mention yourself, lightning network or green address
style payment escrow obviates the need for short
Mark,
It took you 3 minutes to respond to my e-mail. And I responded to you 4
minutes later. If you had responded to me in 10 minutes, I would be of out
the office and we wouldn't have this dialogue. So 5 minutes is a lot of
time.
Obviously this is not a technical response to the technical issues
Den 7 aug 2015 23:37 skrev Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org:
Mark,
It took you 3 minutes to respond to my e-mail. And I responded to you 4
minutes later. If you had responded to me in 10 minutes, I would be of out
the office and we wouldn't have this
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
You make a logical fallacy;
I would agree that nodes are there for people to stop trusting someone that
they have no trust-relationship with.
Yay, trust!
But your conclusion that
Popping this into it's own thread:
Jorge asked:
1) If not now, when will it be a good time to let the market
minimum fee for miners to mine a transaction rise above zero?
I answered:
1. If you are willing to wait an infinite amount of time, I think the
minimum fee will always be zero
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com
wrote:
I guess my question (and perhaps that's what Jorge is after): do you feel
that blocks should be increased in response to (or for fear of) such a
scenario.
I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum
On Thursday 6. August 2015 20.52.28 Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:
It's about reduction of trust. Running a full node and using it verify your
transactions is how you get personal assurance that everyone on the network
is following the rules. And if you don't do so yourself, the knowledge
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com
wrote:
I guess my question (and perhaps that's what Jorge is after): do you feel
that blocks should be increased in response to (or for fear
Interesting position there Peter...you fear more people actually using
bitcoin. The less on chain transactions the lower the velocity and the
lower the value of the network. I would be careful what you ask for
because you end up having nothing left to even root the security of these
off chain
On Aug 7, 2015 5:55 PM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com wrote:
I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, and
yes, fear of Bad Things Happening as we run up against the 1MB limit is one
of the reasons.
What are the other reasons?
I take the opinion of smart
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
If the incentives for running a node don't weight up against the
cost/difficulty using a full node yourself for a majority of people in the
ecosystem, I would argue that there is a
Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-08-07 12:28 寫到:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Gavin Andresen
gavinandre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieter Wuille
pieter.wui...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess my question (and perhaps that's what Jorge is after): do
you feel that
That's a good question.
An argument has been put forward that a larger block size would reduce
the security of the network, so does the converse hold?
On 08/07/2015 11:17 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev wrote:
What if we reduce the block size to 0.125MB? That will allow 0.375tx/s.
If 3-24 sounds
...blocks are found at random intervals.
Every once in a while the network will get lucky and we'll find six blocks in
ten minutes. If you are deciding what transaction fee to put on your
transaction, and you're willing to wait until that six-blocks-in-ten-minutes
once-a-week event,
Surely you have some sort of empirical measurement demonstrating the
validity of that statement? That is to say you've established some
technical criteria by which to determine how much centralization pressure
is too much, and shown that Pieter's proposal undercuts expected progress
in that area?
On Friday 7. August 2015 18.30.28 Pieter Wuille wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
But your conclusion that low node count is an indication that its hard
to run one discards your own point. You forget the point that running
a node is only needed if you
Please don't put words into Pieter's mouth. I guarantee you everyone
working on Bitcoin in their heart of hearts would prefer everyone in the
world being able to use the Bitcoin ledger for whatever purpose, if there
were no cost.
But like any real world engineering issue, this is a matter of
On 8 August 2015 at 00:57, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
I answered:
1. If you are willing to wait an infinite amount of time, I think the
minimum fee will always be zero or very close to zero, so I think it's a
silly question.
That's not
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
If the incentives for running a node don't weight up against the
cost/difficulty using a full node yourself for a majority of people in
the
ecosystem, I would argue that there is a
Anecdotally I've seen two primary reasons posed for not running a node:
1) For enthusiasts who want to altruistically run a node at home, it's
usually a bandwidth / quality of service problem. There are tools to help
work around this, but most users aren't sysadmins and would prefer a simple
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:17 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
No, I'm not trolling. I really want someone to tell me why we
should/shouldn't reduce the block size. Are we going to have more or less
full nodes if we reduce the block size?
Some arguments
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Every once in a while the network will get lucky and we'll find six blocks
in ten minutes. If you are deciding what transaction fee to put on your
transaction, and you're willing to
Peter's proposal undercuts matching blocksize growth to technological
progress not limiting centralization pressure. They are somewhat related,
but I want to be clear on what I originally stated. I would also point out
that Peter's proposal lacks this technical criteria as well.
That being
On 7 Aug 2015, at 16:17, Ryan Butler via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
A raspberry pie 2 node on reasonable Internet connection with a reasonable
hard drive can run a node with 8 or 20mb blocks easily.
I'm curious as I've not seen any data on this subject. How
29 matches
Mail list logo
