On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev
There is nothing tying
transactions to the blocks they appear in.
Transactions can be recieved or accepted in different orders by
different nodes. The purpose of the blockchain is to resolve
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev
Would we discuss his
posting if he would not claim to be Satoshi? There are a lot of smart
people on this list, which publish occasionally quite useful ideas.
I actually learned
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev
To avoid such discussions.
You seem to be assuming that there is specific reason to believe the
message is unauthentic. This is not the case.
Contrary to other poster's claims, if the
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:25 AM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev
ack no inversion. This can actually allow more direct preservation of
I can't follow this
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Nicolas Dorier via bitcoin-dev
I created a small website which show a chart of your approvals about various
BIPs (which you must fill by yourself with a signed pgp message)
For each BIP, you can fill if you approve or
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:36 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
tl;dr: Yes, Bitcoin XT has a privacy problem with the automatic Tor exit
node list download.
It's not a bug, it's a feature: These concerns and others were
specifically called out when we
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev
On 15 August 2015 at 18:43, Satoshi Nakamoto via bitcoin-dev
I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
I do love history lessons from people who weren't actually there.
I doubt the rest of us really enjoy hearing these lessons from from
you where you wildly distort history to reflect your
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Owen via bitcoin-dev
On July 29, 2015 7:15:49 AM EDT, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev:
Consider this: the highest Bitcoin tx fees can possibly go is perhaps
little higher than what our competition charges. Too much higher
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Mike Hearn he...@vinumeris.com wrote:
It was _well_ understood that the users of Bitcoin would wish to
protect its decenteralization by limiting the size of the chain to keep it
verifyable on small devices.
No it wasn't. That is something you invented
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Arnoud Kouwenhoven - Pukaki Corp via
bitcoin-dev firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Thanks for the reply. My understanding is that the bitcoin relay network is
a backbone of connected high speed servers to increase the rate at which
transactions and new
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev
- Will the relay network at least validate block version numbers in the
It already validates block version numbers.
It only relays valid transactions.
Although, the block relaying
On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
The idea that Bitcoins very reason for existence is to avoid trusting anyone
but yourself is something I've heard before, and I have to comment because it
is a destructive thought. It is
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev
> Normalized transaction IDs do help in the case that the single signer wants
> to immediately follow up its transaction with another transaction spending
> the first one's change
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:57 AM, telemaco via bitcoin-dev
> Why not "outsource" totally that data management part to the already
> existing with decades of experience database world. People would be able to
> create incredibly easy bitcoin
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:58 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:48 PM, xor via bitcoin-dev
>> This clearly says that funds can be frozen.
>> Can the BIP65-thing be used to
On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Peter R wrote:
> My previous email described how Type 1 consensus failures can be safely dealt
> with. These include many kinds of database exceptions (e.g., the LevelDB
> fork at block #225,430), or consensus mismatches regarding the max size
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 3:04 AM, Simon Liu via bitcoin-dev
> Given that UTXO storage is considered critical, it seems reasonable to
This sounds like a misunderstanding of what consensus criticial means.
It does not mean that it must be right (though
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Peter R wrote:
> Can you give a specific example of how nodes that used different database
> technologies might determine different answers to whether a given transaction
> is valid or invalid? I’m not a database expert, but to me it would seem
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 6:18 AM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
> On Monday, October 19, 2015 2:01:04 PM Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> The proposal is implemented (see below), by computing the normalized
>> transaction ID when adding them to
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I'm still sad that uniform segregated witeness is so hard to deploy,
> adding another id to every utxo set won't be a nice cost. :( But I
> have been trying for a long time to come up with anything better and
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
> On Monday 5. October 2015 18.03.05 Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> However, I would like to challenge your assumption of point 1 that that by
>> Mike making a rabble, it somehow makes
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
> It is an eloquent change, but not really the topic we were discussing. It also
> makes you attack Mike (calling him out as having a strawman) without basis.
> For the second time in this
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
> Fortunately I can say that while we certainly value your opinion, when peoples
> opinions are hard to read, as you indicated they can be, we should look at
> their actions. The group has
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Boris Neklabaro via bitcoin-dev
> Is it possible to merge 2 utxos spending from multiple P2SH inputs? Or
> combined inputs P2SH and P2PKH in a single transaction?
Yes, the signatures for separate inputs are
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 4:13 AM, Peter R pete...@gmx.com wrote:
I agree that miners may change their level of centralization. This neither
affects the model nor the results presented in the paper.
It has tremdous significance to the real-world impact of your results.
If not for the other
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Peter R pete...@gmx.com wrote:
I am moving our conversation into public as I've recently learned that
you've been forwarding our private email conversation verbatim without
my permission [I received permission from dpinna to share the email
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev
> - Bitcoin-B (Blockstream)
Blockstream currently has no interest in maintaining a separate
implementation of Bitcoin.
At this time I believe doing so would have significantly negative
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Expanding on pay-with-diff and volatility (closing comment),
> Users and miners will have significant difficulty creating and/or predicting
> a stable block size (and fee environment) with pay-with-diff across the
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Jorge Timón wrote:
> Greg, I believe Jeff is focusing on BtcDrak's proposal (
> https://gist.github.com/btcdrak/1c3a323100a912b605b5 ) where the
> increased nBits are used to vote for the block size to raise
> permanently ( or until it gets voted
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev
> (b) requiring miners to have idle
> hashpower on hand to change block size are both unrealistic and potentially
I really cannot figure out how you could characterize pay with
The process in BIP01 was written when we used a different solution for
storing and presenting BIPs.
I'm thinking of suggesting that the number request process be changed
to opening a pull req with BIP text with no number (e.g. just using
the authors name and an index as the number) as the
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Hi all,
> Pieter and Eric pointed out that the current BIP has miners
> turning off the bit as soon as it's locked in (75% testnet / 95%
> mainnet). It's better for them to keep setting the bit until
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Hi Gregory,
>> I'm surprised to see this response
> Why? I have objected to the idea of soft forks many times. I wrote an entire
> article about it in August.
Yes, your article contained numerous factual and
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> It is correct that security is slightly reduced for full nodes that have not
> upgraded. It is not correct that the choice is binary, full node or SPV.
> Any user running a not-upgraded full node still retains protection
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> I coined the term SPV so I know exactly what it means, and bitcoinj
The term comes from the Bitcoin whitepaper.
> On the other hand, full nodes all claim they run scripts. Users expect that
> and may be relying on it. The
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Jorge Timón
> reason you don't think guaranteed eventual consistency has any value
Obligatory pedantic correction: In Bitcoin we don't actually achieve
"eventual consistency" of the kind which is usually described in
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
> At that time nobody used the term "SPV wallet" to refer to what apps like
> BreadWallet or libraries like bitcoinj do. Satoshi used the term "client
> only mode", Jeff was calling them
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev
> The recently published paper I referenced cite's the Cuckoo cycle algorithm,
> discusses its limitations and explains how their proposed algorithm greatly
> improves on it.
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
>> Avoiding this is why I've always previously described this idea as
>> merged mined block DAG (with blocks of arbitrary strength) which are
>> always efficiently deferentially coded against prior state. A new
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev
> Why are they called soft forks when they are really hidden forks? Isn't the
> point of a soft fork to prevent old clients from rejecting what they don't
> have the code to validate?
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev
> Once again, let’s use the current gridlock
Allow me to state unequivocally-- since we've had problems with people
stating non-factuals as fact without getting adequately clear
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
> On Monday 5. October 2015 20.56.34 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> (In this case, I don't even believe we have any regulator
>> contributors that disagree).
> Regular contributor?
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev
> Google Calendar is localized, but has an option to change the timezone
> of an event, it just doesnt have UTC in its options. So, yes, we should
> use something that observes DST in
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
> more recently:
A significant fraction of hashrate currently mines blocks without
verifying them for a span of time after a new block shows up on the
network for economically rational reasons. This otherwise harmful
behavior can be made a beneficial to the whole network; but only if it
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> I agree with Jannes Faber, behavior with respect to SPV clients should be
>> to only tell them about fully validated headers.
> A delicate balance. If we penalize these blocks too much, it's
> disincentive to set
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:
> From this question one could think that when you said "we can do the
> cleanup hardfork later" earlier you didn't really meant it. And that
> you will oppose to that hardfork later just like you are opposing to
> it now.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Jonathan Toomim wrote:
> I understood that SegWit would allow about 1.75 MB of data in the average
> case while also allowing up to 4 MB of data in the worst case. This means
> that the mining and block distribution network would need a larger safety
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev
> Why segwitness as a soft fork? Stuffing the segwitness merkle tree in the
> coinbase is messy and will just complicate consensus-critical code (as
> opposed to making the right side of
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> Create a 1-megabyte transaction, with all of it's inputs spending
> segwitness-spending SIGHASH_ALL inputs.
> Because the segwitness inputs are smaller in the block, you can fit more of
> them into 1 megabyte. Each
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Ryan Butler wrote:
>>I agree, but nothing I have advocated creates significant technical
>>debt. It is also a bad engineering practice to combine functional
>>changes (especially ones with poorly understood system wide
>>consequences and low
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 a fantastic place right now and that the community
is ready to
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 6:47 AM, jl2012--- via bitcoin-dev
> 4. Sum of fee, sigopcount, size etc as part of the witness hash tree: for
I should have also commented on this: the block can indicate how many
sum criteria there are; and then additional
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 6:47 AM, jl2012--- via bitcoin-dev
> It seems the current consensus is to implement Segregated Witness. SW opens
> many new possibilities but we need a balance between new features and
> deployment time frame. I'm listing by my
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Vincent Truong via bitcoin-dev
> have run a node/kept their utxo before they were aware of this change and
> then realise miners have discarded their utxo. Oops?
I believe you have misunderstood jl2012's post. His
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 11:47 PM, Alfie John via bitcoin-dev
> Hi folks,
> Overall I think BIP 151 is a good idea. However unless I'm mistaken, what's to
> prevent someone between peers to suppress the initial 'encinit' message during
I am happy to announce the first successful Zero-Knowledge Contingent
Payment (ZKCP) on the Bitcoin network.
ZKCP is a transaction protocol that allows a buyer to purchase
information from a seller using Bitcoin in a manner which is private,
scalable, secure, and which doesn’t require trusting
Better late than never, I should correct things here. In the future it
would probably be more productive to open an issue. Otherwise there is
no mechanism for someone to take ownership of a response.
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Kristov Atlas via bitcoin-dev
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner
> It a property of the SKCP system that the person who performed the trusted
> setup cannot extract any information from a proof?
> In other words, is it proven hard to obtain
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev
> That is very interesting.
> There has been some recent discussion about atomic cross chain transfers
> between Bitcoin and legacy altcoins. For this purpose a legacy altcoin is
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:07 AM, Joseph Poon via bitcoin-dev
> I'm interested in input and in the level of receptiveness to this. If
> there is interest, I'll write up a draft BIP in the next couple days.
The design of segwit was carefully
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Dave Scotese wrote:
> I think a BIP is a good idea, but rather than making such a specific
> proposal as "Let's use bit 4 to indicate communication of thin blocks," how
> about a more general one like "Let's use bit(s?) 4(-5?) as user-agent
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 8:06 PM, G. Andrew Stone via bitcoin-dev
> The Bitcoin Unlimited client needs a services bit to indicate that the node
> is capable of communicating thin blocks. We propose to use bit 4 as AFAIK
> bit 3 is already earmarked for
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Timo Hanke via bitcoin-dev
> This is what I meant. If existing hardware gets forked-out it will
> inevitably lead to the creation of an altcoin. Simply because the hardware
> exists and can't be used for anything else
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
> Secondly, we can probably make the consensus PoW allow blocks to be mined
> both the existing PoW algorithm, and a very slightly tweaked version where
> implementing AsicBoost
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Pavol Rusnak via bitcoin-dev
> On 21/04/16 14:08, Marek Palatinus via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> Sipa, you are probably the most competent to answer this.
>> Could you please tell us your opinion? For me, this is
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Tom wrote:
> On Monday 09 May 2016 10:43:02 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
>> > You misunderstand the networking effects.
>> > The fact
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Peter R wrote:
> It is a standard result that there are
> m! / [n! (m-n)!]
> ways of picking n numbers from a set of m numbers, so there are
> (2^32)! / [2! (2^32 - 2)!] ~ 2^63
> possible pairs in a set of 2^32 transactions. So wouldn’t
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Jochen Hoenicke via bitcoin-dev
> Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev
> schrieb am Di., 26. Juli 2016 um 22:10 Uhr:
>> Side-note: Bip39 does still use PBKDF2 with 2048 iterations
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Daniel Hoffman via bitcoin-dev <
> I have updated the GitHub a lot (changed tones to be less chirpy, fixed
> some smalls) and made a couple of samples (see attachment for MP3 and FLAC
> of both tone tables, first 16
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
> Still not sure how you can take a BIP32 public seed and figure out if an
> address was derived from it though. I mean, wouldn't I have to compute all
> 2^31 possible public child
> I understand the use, when coupled with a yet-to-be-devised identity system,
> with Bloom filter features. Yet these features
This is a bit of a strawman, you've selected a single narrow usecase
which isn't proposed by the BIP and then argue it is worthless. I
agree that example doesn't have
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev
> An "out of band key check" is not part of BIP151.
It has a session ID for this purpose.
> It requires a secure channel and is authentication. So BIP151 doesn't provide
> the tools to
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Eric Voskuil wrote:
> I don't follow this comment. The BIP aims quite clearly at "SPV" wallets as
> its justifying scenario.
It cites SPV as an example, doesn't mention bloom filters.. and sure--
sounds like the bip text should make the
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Andy Schroder via bitcoin-dev
> I have mixed feelings about strictly tying the identity-public-keys with a
> guaranteed static IP address. The second reason is because the DNS PTR
I don't see any reason that it
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:52 PM, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
> I see.
> But is it really necessary to soft fork over this issue? Why not just make
> it a relay rule? Miners are already incentivized to modify transactions to
> drop excess
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Kenneth Heutmaker via bitcoin-dev
> SPV is kinda broken if the wallet doesn’t do this detection. If your wallet
> connects only to nodes that don’t support bloom filtering, the wallet never
> gets updates. We have
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Andrew C via bitcoin-dev
> On 9/10/2016 5:41 AM, Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> 3. After a few months or so, publish the private key.
> Why wait a few months? Why not just publish the key a few days after the
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Peter Todd wrote:
> Good to do this sooner rather than later, as alert propagation on the P2P
> network is going to continue to get less reliable as nodes upgrade to software
Yes, this was one of my motivations for doing this soon.
The alert system was a centralized facility to allow trusted parties
to send messages to be displayed in wallet software (and, very early
on, actually remotely trigger the software to stop transacting).
It has been removed completely in Bitcoin Core after being disabled for a while.
I've proposed a revision to BIP-1 that removes the option to license
the work under the OPL: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/446
The OPL contains troublesome terms where the licensor can elect to
prohibit print publication of the work as well as the creation of
modified versions without
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
> In the innocent use case of this opcode, a double-spend has already occurred,
> and this should be a strict improvement. In the non-innocent abuse of this
> opcode, I don't see that it's
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Tom via bitcoin-dev
> BIP number for my FT spec.
This document does not appear to be concretely specified enough to
review or implement from it.
For example, it does not specify the serialization of "integer" (is it
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev
> If however
> he is planning to use it as a foothold to further compromise your
> company, send spam or similar, he will likely try to avoid these
> tripwires. [...]
Depends on the
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev
> If you had acted in a way which indicated even the slightest regard for
> centralization pressure and the harm it can do to Bitcoin in the
> long-term, then I dont think many would be
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 9:37 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> each block MUST either contain a BIP-141 segwit commitment or a
> correct WTXID commitment with ID 0xaa21a9ef.
It was just pointed out to me that the proposed ID (which I just
selected to be above the segwit one) collides
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Joseph Poon wrote:
> 00:04gmaxwell| lol poon pretending that he isn't complicit in all this
> Are you *fucking* serious? Is this how you resolve all problems? I'm
> taking you seriously and having
On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Johnson Lau wrote:
> pre-synced means already in mempool and verified? Then it sounds like we just
> need some mempool optimisation? The tx order in a block is not important,
> unless they are dependent
In Bitcoin Core the software _explicitly_
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Cameron Garnham wrote:
> As many may remember, there was quite some controversy about the BIP16 vs BIP
> 17 split; the main argument for BIP16 was the urgency of P2SH, and how this
> was the already “tested and proven to work” solution.
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Steven Pine via bitcoin-dev
> Regarding this last point I was under the impression that if Segwit did not
> activate by November then core was going to move on, is that no longer the
Wow. Where did you get that idea?
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 4:10 AM, Steven Pine wrote:
> but segwit does
> have a 'time out' as defined in BIP 9 with the date of November 15th?
There is a technical requirement that BIP 9 bit allocations must have
a timeout so that a bit is not forever burned if a proposal
I do not support the BIP148 UASF for some of the same reasons that I
do support segwit: Bitcoin is valuable in part because it has high
security and stability, segwit was carefully designed to support and
amplify that engineering integrity that people can count on now and
into the future.
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 6:54 AM, David Vorick via bitcoin-dev
> A node that stores the full blockchain (I will use the term archival node)
> requires over 100GB of disk space, which I believe is one of the most
> significant barriers to
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev
> A network in which many nodes maintain a transaction index also enables a
> class of light node applications that ask peers to prove existence and
> spentness of TXO's.
Only with the
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Tomas wrote:
> The long term *minimal disk storage* requirement, can obviously not be less
> then all the unspent outputs.
Then I think you may want to retract the claim that "As this solution,
reversing the costs of outputs and inputs, [...]
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Tomas wrote:
> Bitcrust separates script validation (base load, when transaction come
> in) from order validation (peak load, when blocks come in).
How do you deal with validity rules changing based on block height?
> For script validation it
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Tomas via bitcoin-dev
> solution, reversing the costs of outputs and inputs, seems to have
> excellent performance characteristics (as shown in the test results),
> updates to the protocol addressing the UTXO
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
> I expected you to know this, but ok, I'll explain.
Please stop abusing participants on this list. Your activity is
actively driving people off this list.
James Hilliard should be
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 9:10 PM, James Hilliard via bitcoin-dev
> would have to intentionally modify the code to mine an invalid block
> which is not something that would be likely to happen accidentally.
IIRC-- If you do it accidentally you'll fail
1 - 100 of 234 matches
Mail list logo