On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 01:57:14PM -0700, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
On 03/24/2014 01:34 PM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
I'm here because I want to sell corn for bitcoin, and I believe it will be
more profitable for me to do that with a bitcoin-blockchain-based system
in which I have the
I think that's fair, so long as we limit bitcoin-development discussion to
issues that are relevant to the owners of the hashrate and companies that
pay developer salaries.
What I'm asking for is some honesty that Bitcoin is a centralized system
and to stop arguing technical points on the altar
On 03/24/2014 01:34 PM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
I'm here because I want to sell corn for bitcoin, and I believe it will be
more profitable for me to do that with a bitcoin-blockchain-based system
in which I have the capability to audit the code that executes the trade.
A discussion over such a
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 8:47:02 AM Peter Todd wrote:
To make a long story short, it was soon suggested that Bitcoin Core be
forked - the software, not the protocol - and miners encouraged to
support it.
There's been at least one public miner-oriented fork of Bitcoin Core since 0.7
or
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 03:08:25PM -0400, Peter Todd wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:08:36AM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 04:47:02AM -0400, Peter Todd wrote:
There's been a lot of recent hoopla over proof-of-publication, with the
OP_RETURN data length getting
This isn't distributed-systems-development, it is bitcoin-development.
Discussion over chain parameters is a fine thing to have among people
who are interested in that sort of thing. But not here.
On 03/23/2014 04:17 PM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
I find it very irresponsible for Bitcoiners to on
On 3/22/14, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
There's been a lot of recent hoopla over proof-of-publication, with the
OP_RETURN data length getting reduced to a rather useless 40 bytes at
the last minute prior to the 0.9 release.
I'm not against about miners accepting transactions that
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 04:47:02AM -0400, Peter Todd wrote:
There's been a lot of recent hoopla over proof-of-publication, with the
OP_RETURN data length getting reduced to a rather useless 40 bytes at
the last minute prior to the 0.9 release. Secondly I noticed a
overlooked security flaw in
Please, by all means: ignore our well-reasoned arguments about
externalized storage and validation cost and alternative solutions.
Please re-discover how proof of publication doesn't require burdening
the network with silly extra data that must be transmitted, kept, and
validated from now until
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:08:36AM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 04:47:02AM -0400, Peter Todd wrote:
There's been a lot of recent hoopla over proof-of-publication, with the
OP_RETURN data length getting reduced to a rather useless 40 bytes at
the last minute prior
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 02:53:41PM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:
On 3/22/14, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
There's been a lot of recent hoopla over proof-of-publication, with the
OP_RETURN data length getting reduced to a rather useless 40 bytes at
the last minute prior to the 0.9
11 matches
Mail list logo
