I see it as unreasonable to expect all nodes to upgrade during a hardfork.
If you are intentionally waiting for that to happen, it's possible for an
extreme minority of nodes to hold the rest of the network hostage by simply
refusing to upgrade. However you want nodes to be able to protest until it
I disagree that 11 is a reasonable value. That's less than 2 hours, which
probably wouldn't even last peak trading hours. You want the mempool to be
big enough that low-fee transactions introduced during peak hours are still
around when there's much less activity (it maximizes miner profit and
prev
Seems like a good change to me.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Rusty Russell
wrote:
> Pieter Wuille writes:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > We've been aware of the risk of depending on OpenSSL for consensus
> > rules for a while, and were trying to get rid of this as part of BIP
> > 62 (malleabil
ining against dogecoin, you almost certainly
have a huge vested interest in cryptocurrencies doing well. By attacking
dogecoin successfully, you'll cast doubt on the entire cryptocurrency
ecosystem and hurt yourself in the process.
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 5:05 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:
> On 1/4/14,
If you have the resources to attack one of the bigger altcoins, you
probably have a significant investment in the cryptocurrency space, and a
significant interest in protecting it. Compromising even something like
dogecoin would cause a lot of questions to be raised and likely drop the
value of bit
I've been wondering why a blockchain is necessary at all. Ripple doesn't
have one (I haven't looked closely at their implementation but it seems
reasonable to go without one).
When you do blockchain based transaction confirmations, you give full
authority to the miner that finds the transaction bl
6 matches
Mail list logo
