On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org wrote:
Hi Mike
Well thank you for replying openly on this topic, its helpful.
I apologise in advance if this gets quite to the point and at times
blunt, but transparency is important, and we owe it to the users who
see Bitcoin
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 08:33:31PM +0800, Pindar Wong wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org wrote:
Dear Adam, All:
At the community's convenience, it would be an honour to arrange
Thanks Bryan for collating these links in one great list. This is very
helpful and thanks for sharing it.
Feel free to fork https://github.com/EthanHeilman/BlockSizeDebate
edit to add the list of proposals and create a pull request to Ethan.
There's also a miningconsensus.slack.com group to have
and what isn't, as I
don't have as low-level an understanding as I'd like. I don't feel
qualified.
On Jun 6, 2015 2:34 AM, Pindar Wong pindar.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Gabe.
https://github.com/gappleto97/BlockSizeDebate
github's reachable via vpn.
p.
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 2:28 PM, gabe
in this email chain.
I'll be getting home tomorrow, so I should be able to start back up on
this. A few days from now we should throw this on /r/Bitcoin so we can get
some more public comment on it. They already gave me a few leads to chase.
On Jun 5, 2015 11:34 PM, Pindar Wong pindar.w...@gmail.com
Gabe,
Did you ever get an answer to this?
Ill have some time tomorrow to be able to help with some work on this and
will need to do it myself anyways since I'm not sure I understand the
nuances, where bitcoin XT fits into the scheme of things (or not) etc.
I would have thought that there would
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Stephen Morse stephencalebmo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Pindar,
yes and it's a good idea to separate the hard/soft fork upgrades. The
point being here is that we're also establishing a process for the
community to self-determine the way forward in a transparent and
I think it would be helpful if we could all *chill* and focus on the solid
engineering necessary to make Bitcoin succeed.
p.
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Chun Wang 1240...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
Whilst it would be nice if miners
Two very valid and important points. Thank you for making these
observations Peter.
p.
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 06:42:05PM +0800, Pindar Wong wrote:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Ricardo Filipe ricardojdfil...@gmail.com
wrote:
2015-06-01 0:40 GMT+01:00 Pindar Wong pindar.w...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Ricardo Filipe
ricardojdfil...@gmail.com
wrote:
He also said that the equation for miners has many variables
Hi,
Perhaps at some point consider introducing something akin to a
'Bitcoin-Draft' (BD) status with some autoexpiry period?
I understand that the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
http://www.ietf.org has the concept of 'Internet Drafts (ID)
http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt
11, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Pindar Wong pindar.w...@gmail.com
wrote:
Perhaps at some point consider introducing something akin to a
'Bitcoin-Draft' (BD) status with some autoexpiry period?
I understand that the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has the
concept of 'Internet Drafts (ID
*Spendid* work Andrew (and all the other authors). Well done.
This is a timely paper that deserves significantly wider circulation and
comment.
FWIW, Joichi Ito, from the MIT media Lab, made reference to your work
during yesterday's MIT Bitcoin Expo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIgjogLipvk[@
13 matches
Mail list logo
