Discomfort with Sourceforge
For a while now people have been expressing concern about Sourceforge's
continued hosting of the bitcoin-dev mailing list. Downloads were moved
completely to bitcoin.org after the Sept 2014 hacking incident of the SF
project account. The company's behavior and
The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be
transitioned -away- from software and software developers, to the free
market.
Exactly right. Bitcoin does not have a free market for fee though, and
literally all the discussion so far has neglected some fundamental
aspect of this, as
Jeff,
with all due respect, but I've seen you saying this a few times
now, that this decision is oh so difficult and important.
But this is not helpful. We all know that. Even I.
Make a suggestion, or stay out of the debate!
Mats
On 06/14/2015 07:36 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
The choice is very
Pieter,
Am 13.06.2015 um 16:39 schrieb Pieter Wuille:
We can reasonably assume that different people's wallet will tend to be
distributed uniformly over several sidechains to hold their transactions (if
they're not, there is no scaling benefit anyway...). That means that for an
average
Hi all,
it's a very useful approach to also model fees and you came up with an
interesting scenario.
Assuming that you meant that the groups are only connected with a single link,
I've recreated the scenario with Gavin's simulation and got similar results.
The group with the large hashrate does
Exactly -- both block size proponents and block size change conservatives
seem to be glossing over this aspect - much to my dismay.
Choosing the size limit is choosing the size of a scarce resource. By fiat.
It is wrong to think that a technical consensus can choose what is best
here.
The
Update: BIP 79 has been implemented in the latest release of Electrum,
v2.3.2:
https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/master/RELEASE-NOTES
-Kristov
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Kristov Atlas kristovatlas.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
Since everyone's busy, I went ahead and made a pull
It might be as well to keep the archive but disable new posts as
otherwise we create bit-rot for people who linked to posts on
sourceforge.
The list is also archived on mail-archive though.
https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/
Adam
On 14 June 2015 at 22:55,
Hi
I made these comments elsewhere, but I think really we should be
having these kind of conversations here rather than scattered around.
These are about Jeff Garzik's outline draft BIP 100 I guess this is
the latest draft: (One good thing about getting off SF would be
finally JGarzik's emails
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I fully agree and support this idea.
Some recent discussion on social media which touches on this very
subject of bitcoin and sourceforge (I include nmap and gittorrent
as well because those seem relevant, imho)
Hi,
I just wanted to let everyone know that every email is also archived at
bitcoin-development.narkive.com http://bitcoin-development.narkive.com/,
where you can find everything since the beginning of the list (June 2011). That
should answer to Andy’s concern about the older messages not
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 4:42 AM, Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au wrote:
Title: Canonical Input and Output Ordering
Author: Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au
Discussions-To: Bitcoin Dev bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Created: 2015-06-06
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Danny Thorpe danny.tho...@gmail.com wrote:
Recommending sorting of the inputs and outputs as a best practice is fine
(and better than random, IMO), but not as part of IsStandard() or consensus
rules. There are cases where the order of the inputs and outputs is
Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
Which is why there will soon be a fork that does it.
I understand why you would be keen to scale bitcoin, everyone here is.
But as you seem to be saying that you will do a unilateral hard-fork,
and fork the code-base simultaneously, probably a number of people
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wtog...@gmail.com wrote:
From the perspective of our community, for bitcoin-dev it seems like a great
fit. Why? While they are interested in supporting general open source
development, the LF has literally zero stake in this. In addition to
Adding - in re pay-to-FOO - these schemes are inherently short term, such
that it is near-impossible for the market to plan for what happens in 12+
months.
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org
16 matches
Mail list logo
