On 10 June 2013 23:09, Peter Todd wrote:
> So here's the parts that need to be done for step #1:
>
>
> # Protocol Work
>
> Basic idea is the miner makes two connections, their pool, and a local
> bitcoind.
>
> They always (usually?) work on the subset of transactions common to both
> the pool's g
On Monday, June 10, 2013 9:09:13 PM Peter Todd wrote:
> # Protocol Work
This is basically done.
> Basic idea is the miner makes two connections, their pool, and a local
> bitcoind.
>
> They always (usually?) work on the subset of transactions common to both
> the pool's getblocktemplate and thei
So here's the parts that need to be done for step #1:
# Protocol Work
Basic idea is the miner makes two connections, their pool, and a local
bitcoind.
They always (usually?) work on the subset of transactions common to both
the pool's getblocktemplate and their local one. When they find a share
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 01:25:05PM -0400, Alan Reiner wrote:
> to sign votes. Not only that, but it would require them to reveal their
> public key, which while isn't technically so terrible, large amounts of
> money intended to be kept in storage for 10+ years will prefer to avoid
> any exposure
One major problem I see with this, no matter how well-thought-out it is,
it's unlikely that those with money will participate. Those with the
most stake, likely have their private keys behind super-secure
accessibility barriers, and are not likely to go through the effort just
to sign votes. Not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John,
What you are recommending is a drastic change that the conservative
bitcoin developers probably wouldn't get behind (but let's see). However
proof-of-stake voting on protocol soft-forks has vast implications even
beyond the block size limit. Wi
On 10 June 2013 10:35, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Melvin Carvalho
> wrote:
> > However, Bitcoin's fundamental philosophy was one CPU one vote.
>
> This is perhaps the largest misconception that keeps being repeated.
> Bitcoin is not a democracy; it is a zero-trust s
On 10 June 2013 10:26, John Dillon wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Melvin Carvalho
> wrote:
> > -1
> >
> > Firstly I appreciate the ingenious thought that went into this post.
> >
> > However, Bitcoin's fundamental philosophy was on
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Melvin Carvalho
wrote:
> However, Bitcoin's fundamental philosophy was one CPU one vote.
This is perhaps the largest misconception that keeps being repeated.
Bitcoin is not a democracy; it is a zero-trust system. The rules are
set in stone, and every full node ve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Melvin Carvalho
wrote:
> -1
>
> Firstly I appreciate the ingenious thought that went into this post.
>
> However, Bitcoin's fundamental philosophy was one CPU one vote.
Indeed it was. Which is why as GPU's came onto
On 10 June 2013 06:09, John Dillon wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> It has been suggested that we leave the decision of what the blocksize to
> be
> entirely up to miners. However this leaves a parameter that affects every
> Bitcoin participant in the control of a sm
11 matches
Mail list logo
