Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size following technological growth

2015-07-31 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: He is not saying that. Whatever the reasons for centralization are, it is obvious that increasing the size won't help. It's not obvious. Quite possibly bigger blocks == more users ==

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn'ttemporary

2015-07-31 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: Because any decentralized system is going to have high transaction costs and scarcity anyway

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

2015-08-07 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] summarising security assumptions (re cost metrics)

2015-11-08 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I'm very disappointed you don't mention the tradeoff at "the other end of > the bathtub" -- Key-holder versus Validator decentralization balance Gavin, could you please provide some

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Lightning Network's effect on miner fees

2015-10-14 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev wrote: > However, the two are also perfect compliments, as LN transactions cannot take > place at all without periodic on-chain transactions. Additionally, lightning network hot wallets are not

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Open Block Chain Licence, BIP[xxxx] Draft

2015-09-01 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > We believe the network requires a block chain licence Here is a previous discussion of this topic (2012): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=117663.0 - Bryan http://heybryan.org/

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP/Draft] BIP Acceptance Process

2015-09-03 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Andy Chase via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I wrote the BIP mostly to stir the pot on ideas of governance Some quick comments: I have some objects that I am not ready to put into words, but I do think there are easily some major

[bitcoin-dev] Multi-chain payment channel nodes

2015-09-03 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
Here is a brief overview of a way to use something like the lightning network, or another multi-hop payment channel network, to handle more transactions per second. These ideas were mentioned yesterday in #bitcoin-wizards and my email does not significantly elaborate on any of it (search for

[bitcoin-dev] Some transcripts from the Scaling Bitcoin workshops

2015-12-06 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
Hey while I was listening to the talks I also typed most of the words down. Here are some talks from the Hong Kong workshop: http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/bip99-and-uncontroversial-hard-forks/

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system.

2015-12-07 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > The Scaling Bitcoin Workshop in HK is just wrapping up. Many fascinating > proposals were presented. I think this would be a good time to share my > view of the near term arc for capacity increases in the Bitcoin system. I > believe we’re in

Re: [bitcoin-dev] fork types (Re: An implementation of BIP102 as a softfork.)

2015-12-30 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > There is also another type of fork a firm hard fork that can do the > same but for format changes that are not possible with a soft-fork. > I was drafting an email for a new thread with

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

2015-12-26 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On 12/26/2015 05:01 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > I think the shortest reasonable timeframe for an uncontroversial > > hardfork is somewhere in the range between 6 and

Re: [bitcoin-dev] On the security of softforks

2015-12-19 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 6:18 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Anyway, we should write this up as a BIP - there's been a tremendous > amount of misinformation, even flat out lies, floating around on this > subject. > Er, this sounds like something

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Increasing the blocksize as a (generalized) softfork.

2015-12-20 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 4:56 AM, joe2015--- via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > An Arbitrary Block-size Increase Via a Generalized Softfork > This seems conceptually similar to "extension blocks":

Re: [bitcoin-dev] OP_CHECKWILDCARDSIGVERIFY or "Wildcard Inputs" or "Coalescing Transactions"

2015-11-24 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Chris Priest via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > **OP_CHECKWILDCARDSIGVERIFY** Some (minor) discussion of this idea in -wizards earlier today starting near near "09:50" (apologies for having no anchor links):

[bitcoin-dev] Gavin: A Response to Your Forking BIP

2016-02-06 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > Responding to "28 days is not long enough" : > Gavin, Thank you for the emails. Bitcoin Core has been working with the Bitcoin ecosystem on developing and now testing a new capacity increasing feature called segregated witness (segwit).

Re: [bitcoin-dev] SIGHASH_NOINPUT in Segregated Witness

2016-02-25 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Joseph Poon wrote: > This would be achieved using a SIGHASH flag, termed SIGHASH_NOINPUT. It > does not include as part of the signature, the outpoint being spent > (txid and index), nor the amount. It however, would include the spent > outpoint's script as part of

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated Witness App Development

2016-01-19 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Wouldn't this be entirely on topic for #bitcoin-dev? It's probably better > not to fragment the communication channels and associated infrastructure > (logs, bots, etc.) Yeah, I

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardfork to fix difficulty drop algorithm

2016-03-02 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > We are coming up on the subsidy halving this July, and there have been some > Luke, One reason "hard-fork to fix difficulty drop algorithm" could be controversial is that the proposal involves a hard-fork (perhaps necessarily so, at my first

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compact Block Relay BIP

2016-05-09 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Tom via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > The moderators failed to catch his aggressive tone while moderating my post > (see archives) for being too aggressive. > IIRC you were previously informed by moderators (on the same reddit

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Holdup on Block Alerts / Fraud Proofs ?

2016-07-30 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > I've also heard that segwit will help, but don't understand why. > There are some helpful discussions that happened over here:

[bitcoin-dev] Mimblewimble: non-interactive coinjoin, signature aggregation and confidential transactions

2016-08-03 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
Someone dropped this document in -wizards the other day: http://5pdcbgndmprm4wud.onion/mimblewimble.txt http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/bitcoin/mimblewimble.txt Some commentary: http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-wizards/2016-08-02.log http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-wizards/2016-08-03.log

[bitcoin-dev] A conversation with Dan Boneh (2016-08-01)

2016-08-02 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
Some Bitcoin developers and miners went to visit with Dan Boneh at Stanford earlier today, and I thought I would share what we talked about. Transcript: http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/2016-july-bitcoin-developers-miners-meeting/dan-boneh/ Topics discussed include elliptic curve crypto, ECDSA,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardware Wallet Standard

2016-08-17 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > The other serious problem - and this is a problem with smartcards in > general > anyway - is that without Bitcoin-specific logic you're just signing > blindly; we > recently saw the

[bitcoin-dev] Some transcripts from Scaling Bitcoin 2016

2016-10-15 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
Previously: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011862.html Here are some talks from Milan: http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/fungibility-overview/ http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/milan/joinmarket/

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Defending against empty or near empty blocks from malicious miner takeover?

2017-03-26 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Trevin Hofmann wrote: > He stated that "any invalid blocks they produce" will be orphaned. This is > not false. If non-upgraded miners do not produce blocks that are invalid > per the new rules, their blocks will not be orphaned. This is

[bitcoin-dev] Fwd: [Mimblewimble] Lightning in Scriptless Scripts

2017-03-20 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
-- Forwarded message -- From: Andrew Poelstra Date: Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 5:11 PM Subject: [Mimblewimble] Lightning in Scriptless Scripts To: mimblewim...@lists.launchpad.net In my last post about scriptless scripts [2] I described a way to do

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Inhibiting a covert attack on the Bitcoin POW function

2017-04-06 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Luv Khemani via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Could you elaborate on why you consider ASICBOOST to be an attack? Attack > here implies ill-intent by the practitioner towards the network as a > primary motivating factor. > > See

[bitcoin-dev] Fwd: [Lightning-dev] Lightning in the setting of blockchain hardforks

2017-08-17 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
-- Forwarded message -- From: Christian Decker Date: Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 5:39 AM Subject: Re: [Lightning-dev] Lightning in the setting of blockchain hardforks To: Martin Schwarz , lightning-...@lists.linuxfoundation.org Hi

[bitcoin-dev] Fwd: [Lightning-dev] Lightning Developers Biweekly Meeting Announce

2017-07-12 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
-- Forwarded message -- From: Rusty Russell Date: Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:27 PM Subject: [Lightning-dev] Lightning Developers Biweekly Meeting Announce To: lightning-...@lists.linuxfoundation.org Hi all! Every two weeks we've been running an

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap

2017-07-11 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev wrote: > it, etc. But I am not willing to press the issue. Some of your other > comments I also find confusing but there is little to be gained in > clarifying them. ) To me it looked as if I was

[bitcoin-dev] Fwd: [Mimblewimble] proofs of position and UTXO set commitments

2017-07-27 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
-- Forwarded message -- From: Bram Cohen Date: Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [Mimblewimble] Switch to Blake2 To: Ignotus Peverell Cc: Bryan Bishop I have quite a few thoughts about proofs of

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap

2017-07-11 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
I can't help but notice that I have read Greg's email before-- all the way back in 2016. It would have been impossible for him to write a reply to Paul's current email back then... but I also notice that Greg did not indicate that he was copy-pasting until the very end (and even then his aside at

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Partially Signed Bitcoin Transaction (PSBT) format

2017-08-20 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > I would like to propose a standard format for unsigned and partially > signed transactions. > Just a quick note but perhaps you and other readers would find this thread (on hardware

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Merkle branch verification & tail-call semantics for generalized MAST

2017-09-11 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I believe you meant "unclean stack," and you are correct. This was > also pointed out last tuesday by a participant at the in-person > CoreDev meetup where the idea was presented.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Responsible disclosure of bugs

2017-09-11 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote: > All of those things seem like they'd help not just altcoins but bitcoin > investors/traders too, so it's not even a trade-off between classes of > bitcoin core users. And if in the end

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Revising BIP 2 to expand editorial authority

2017-09-27 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > What do people think about modifying BIP 2 to allow editors to merge these > kinds of changes without involving the Authors? Strictly speaking, BIP 2 > shouldn't be changed now that it

[bitcoin-dev] Fwd: [Lightning-dev] General question on routing difficulties

2017-11-25 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
-- Forwarded message -- From: Olaoluwa Osuntokun Date: Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 1:16 PM Subject: Re: [Lightning-dev] General question on routing difficulties To: Pedro Moreno Sanchez Cc: lightning-...@lists.linuxfoundation.org (final try as

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Protocol-Level Pruning

2017-11-16 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
It's not clear to me if you are have looked at the previous UTXO set commitment proposals. some utxo set commitment bookmarks (a little old) http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/irc/bitcoin/utxo-commitments-or-fraud-proofs.stdout.txt TXO bitfields

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Miner dilution attack on Bitcoin - is that something plausible?

2018-06-18 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Bram Cohen via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Not sure what you're saying here. The block rate can't be particularly > increased or decreased in the long run due to the work difficulty > adjustment getting you roughly back where you

[bitcoin-dev] Alert key retirement?

2018-06-17 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
Alert key has yet to be disclosed. The alert system itself has been retired for quite a while now. More information about this can be found here: https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2016-11-01-alert-retirement https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-September/013104.html Recently it

[bitcoin-dev] Alert key disclosure

2018-07-02 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
The bitcoin alert keys are disclosed in this email, followed by a disclosure of various known vulnerabilities in what was once the alert system. The bitcoin alert system has been completely retired. The network is not at risk and this warning may be safely ignored if you do not have an ancient

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Single signature for all transactions in a block?

2017-12-31 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 5:39 PM, CANNON via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > I had a question relating to scaling and privacy enhancements. > I believe that segwit combined with aggregated signatures > and coinjoin can potentially achieve such. The idea is to > use

Re: [bitcoin-dev] How accurate are the Bitcoin timestamps?

2018-01-29 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 7:34 AM, Neiman via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > But how accurate are Bitcoins timestamps? > A perspective on block timestamp and opentimestamps can be found here: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-blockchain/2016Sep/0076.html

[bitcoin-dev] Fwd: [Lightning-dev] AMP: Atomic Multi-Path Payments over Lightning

2018-02-08 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
-- Forwarded message -- From: Olaoluwa Osuntokun Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:26 PM Subject: [Lightning-dev] AMP: Atomic Multi-Path Payments over Lightning To: lightning-dev Hi Y'all, A common question I've seen

[bitcoin-dev] Fwd: [Lightning-dev] Post-Schnorr lightning txes

2018-02-20 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
-- Forwarded message -- From: Anthony Towns Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 4:59 PM Subject: [Lightning-dev] Post-Schnorr lightning txes To: lightning-...@lists.linuxfoundation.org Hi *, My understanding of lightning may be out of date, so please forgive (or at

[bitcoin-dev] CVE-2018-17144 disclosure (inflation vulnerability) (copy-paste)

2018-09-25 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
It has been informed to me that the writeup for the recent vulnerability was not distributed to this mailing list. Please find details at the following blog post: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2018/09/20/notice/ I believe a release notice was posted but not information about the bug,

[bitcoin-dev] Fwd: [bitcoin-core-dev] On the initial notice of CVE-2018-17144

2018-09-22 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
-- Forwarded message -- From: Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-core-dev < bitcoin-core-...@lists.linuxfoundation.org> Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 12:12 PM Subject: [bitcoin-core-dev] On the initial notice of CVE-2018-17144 To: bitcoin-core-...@lists.linuxfoundation.org For some reason

[bitcoin-dev] Mailing list downtime, archive, and its future

2019-03-05 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
Hi all, Just fyi, but this bitcoin-dev mailing list has been down for a few weeks. It's currently hosted by Linux Foundation, and they are slowly deprecating their support for email. We will have to find an alternative service provider for the mailing list moving forward. I have received a

[bitcoin-dev] Transcripts from coredev.tech Amsterdam 2019 meeting

2019-06-07 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
Hi, The following are some notes from the coredev.tech Amsterdam 2019 meeting. Any mistakes are my probably my own. Here is a conversation about the code review process in Bitcoin Core: http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/bitcoin-core-dev-tech/2019-06-05-code-review/ Here is a conversation with

Re: [bitcoin-dev] testnet4

2019-06-08 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
Be greeted Emil, On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 9:21 AM Emil Engler via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Hello, I tried myself with some Bitcoin development. For this I used of > course the Bitcoin testnet. However it took me one hour to sync the > blockchain with around

[bitcoin-dev] Fwd: [ots-dev] miniOTS: ots proofs that fit in a tweet

2019-06-05 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
-- Forwarded message - From: William Casarin Date: Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 9:13 AM Subject: [ots-dev] miniOTS: ots proofs that fit in a tweet To: Hello OTS people, Following from my previous post about cleartext OTS proof sharing[1], I've been working on a new OTS format called

[bitcoin-dev] Transcripts from Breaking Bitcoin 2019

2019-06-09 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
Hi all, The following are some notes I took during Breaking Bitcoin 2019, selected for relevance. Any mistakes are most likely my own. Carl Dong gave an excellent talk on guix as a replacement for the gitian build system:

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin vaults with anti-theft recovery/clawback mechanisms

2019-08-12 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:01 AM Peter Todd wrote: > The key difference being it's not important that this be a *public* > notification: that the public can see just happens to be an (unfortunate) > implementation detail. For example, you could imagine a system where the > "prepare to spend" tx

[bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin vaults with anti-theft recovery/clawback mechanisms

2019-08-07 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
Hi, I have a proposal for implementing bitcoin vaults in a way that does not require any soft-forks or other software upgrades, although it could benefit from SIGHASH_NOINPUT which I'll describe later. I call them pre-signed vaults. Vault definition Here, a vault is defined as

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin vaults with anti-theft recovery/clawback mechanisms

2019-08-07 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
Hi, One of the biggest problems with the vault scheme (besides all of the setup data that has to be stored for a long time) is an attacker that silently steals the hot wallet private key and waits for the vault's owner to make a delayed-spend transaction to initiate a withdrawal from the vault.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin vaults with anti-theft recovery/clawback mechanisms

2019-08-07 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
Replying to two emails below. On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 7:27 PM ZmnSCPxj wrote: > > - Re-vaulting transaction. This is where the magic happens. The > re-vaulting > > transaction is signed during transaction tree setup, before > constructing the > > delayed-spend transaction for the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Meta] bitcoin-dev moderation

2019-08-02 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 10:50 PM Emil Engler via bitcoin-dev wrote: > The current situation is that the moderation is slow and takes around > >24h for a E-Mail to be on the mailing list It really shouldn't be 24 hours. Our strategy was to have a few moderators in different timezones to cover

[bitcoin-dev] Transcripts from Scaling Bitcoin 2019

2019-09-16 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
Hi, Here are some transcripts of talks from Scaling Bitcoin 2019 Tel Aviv. Any errors are most likely my own. Training material Training materials for bitcoin developers: https://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/tel-aviv-2019/edgedevplusplus/ Foundation topics:

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP-able idea] Regular testnet reset

2019-09-15 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:49 AM Emil Engler via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Hello, I'm thinking about writing a BIP about resetting the testnet on > regular/scheduled basis > As a reminder, here is where you last brought up the idea, and the feedback: