On 03/24/2017 07:00 PM, Aymeric Vitte wrote:
> I don't know what "Time is running short I fear" stands for and when 50%
> is supposed to be reached
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 03/24/2017 07:00 PM, Aymeric Vitte wrote: > I don't know what
"Time is running short I fear" stand
Thanks, those are valid concerns.
> Potentially miners could create their own private communication
> channel/listening port for submitting transactions that they would not relay
> to other miners/the public node relay network.
That is the idea. Transaction Processors could source transactions
f
Further to recent posts to this list concerning mining with more than one
hash function, Adam Perlow and me have a (longish) proposal/analysis on
combining multi-hash with bitcoin stake voting on what the mix of hashes
should be. Two novelties are:
* Targeting a ratio of blocks mined under each ha
One of the purported benefits of a soft-forking change (a tightening of the
consensus rule set) is the reduced risk of a blockchain split compared to a
loosening of the consensus rule set. The way this works is that miners who
fail to upgrade to the new tighter ruleset will have their non-compl
Surely you are aware that what you are proposing is vastly different from
the way soft forks have historically worked.
First of all, the bar for miners being on the new chain is extremely high,
95%.
Second of all, soft forks make rule restrictions on classes of transactions
that are already non-s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/25/2017 01:28 PM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> In the case of the coming network upgrade to larger blocks, a
primary concern [...] is the possibility of a blockchain split and the
associated confusion, replay risk, etc.
> [...] a minority
