On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo elombr...@gmail.com wrote:
2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences…and particularly for miners. It
lends itself to much greater corruptibility.
What is the alternative? Have a Chief Scientist or Technical Advisory
Board choose what is a
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Chun Wang 1240...@gmail.com wrote:
To tell you the truth. It is only because most miners are not located
in the West. If Slush, Eligius and BTC Guild still on top 3, the core
developers, including brain-dead Mike Hearn, would be very happy to do
BIP100 just
The choice is very real and on-point. What should the block size limit
be? Why?
There is a large consensus that it needs increasing. To what? By what
factor?
The size limit literally defines the fee market, the whole damn thing. If
software high priests choose a size limit of 300k, space is
I definitely think we need some voting system for metaconsensus…but if we’re
going to seriously consider this we should look at the problem much more
generally. Using false choices doesn’t really help, though ;)
- Eric Lombrozo
On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com
Yes, it does bother (some) people to see the consensus based system
because of the difficulties that can be associated with implementing
it. But that's the way it is. If you don't like consensus based
systems (or decentralized, distributed systems) this is probably the
wrong space for you.
Chun,
With all due respect, there are a couple major differences between BIP34 and
BIP66 on the one hand and BIP100 on the other.
1) BIP34 and BIP66 are soft forks. Miners choosing to switch to them will not
seriously impact validation rules for non-mining users that do not make the
switch.
Miner voting, while imperfect, is the least-worst of various solutions
which inject market input into the system. It is is known quantity, field
tested, and must be sustained, in public, over a time span of months. As
this thread shows, stakeholder and direct user voting is nigh impossible to
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Tier Nolan tier.no...@gmail.com wrote:
Once the 75% threshold is reached, miners who haven't updated are at risk
of mining on invalid blocks.
Note that we've been above the 75% threshold since june 7th (before Peter's
main was sent).
--
Pieter
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Andrew onelinepr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
I briefly mentioned something about this on the bitcoin-dev IRC room. In
general, it seems experts (like sipa i.e. Pieter) are against using
sidechains as a way of scaling. As I only have a high level understanding
of
I've been tossing around an idea in my head that involves time-locked
encryption [0] and I wondered what the devs here think about it. In a
nutshell: the timechain is a serial chain of time-lock encrypted GPG keys
at N minute intervals (meaning that it requires N minutes to decrypt a
single link /
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/02/2015 04:03 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
(...)
If you really believe that decentralisation is, itself, the end,
then why not go use an ASIC resistant alt coin with no SPV or web
wallets which resembles Bitcoin at the end of 2009? That'd be a
I've been tossing around an idea in my head that involves time-locked
encryption [0] and I wondered what the devs here think about it. In a
nutshell: the timechain is a serial chain of time-lock encrypted GPG keys
at N minute intervals (meaning that it requires N minutes to decrypt a
single link /
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Aaron Voisine vois...@gmail.com wrote:
A Header-PoW-verifying client could still be given all transactions in
a recent block, from which it can see the in-band fees directly.
You don't know the fees paid by any given transaction unless you also have
all
First of all, I added more info to bitcointalk.org:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1083345.0
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com
wrote:
In your proposal, transactions go to a chain based the addresses involved.
We can reasonably assume that
Please forgive my ignorance, but why should Bitcoin users have a say in
block size limits? It's the miners and Bitcoin node operators that bear
the burden of managing large blocks, no?
Users voting on network parameters sounds like neighbors voting on how deep
my swimming pool should be.
That’s exactly the problem with Bitcoin - it was supposed to be the case that
users ARE the miners and node operators…but…alas…
On Jun 13, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Danny Thorpe danny.tho...@gmail.com wrote:
Please forgive my ignorance, but why should Bitcoin users have a say in block
size limits?
16 matches
Mail list logo
