Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase

> Personally, for privacy reasons I do not want to leave a footprint in the blockchain for each pizza. And why should this expense be good for trivial things of everyday life? Then what's the point? Isn't this supposed to be an Open transactional network, it doesn't matter if you don't want that,

Re: [Bitcoin-development] On Rewriting Bitcoin (was Re: [Libbitcoin] Satoshi client: is a fork past 0.10 possible?)

I strongly suggest you take a look at swig for doing this. It's very straightforward generating bindings in an automated fashion with it. http://www.swig.org/ You could probably have it done in one or two days with Swig. Once you do the Java bindings with it, it'll be a few adjustments and you'l

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Is there a way to estimate the maximum number of transactions per minute Bitcoin can handle as it is today?

My concerns come from 2 projects that could easily raise the current transaction volume 10x daily in the short term, perhaps even 100x a year from now after the media blows it out. Think legal bittorrent file sales: ebooks, indie music (albums and singles), films, art, stock photography. Think p

[Bitcoin-development] Is there a way to estimate the maximum number of transactions per minute Bitcoin can handle as it is today?

On the Chinese "Single's Day" (sort of like the american Black Friday) according to MIT's Tech Review magazine "Alipay handled up to 2.85 million transactions per minute, and 54 percent of its transac

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: why Google Protocol Buffers for encoding?

why not allow both serializations and keep serialization format a parameter, keep everyone happy. http://twitter.com/gubatron On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I've implemented > BIP70 a couple of times now and didn't

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

I think this is the only project where people are concerened wether commit messages are signed or not. Commit messages should be merged only upon their correctness, not their signature. I could care less if I receive a buggy patch that's signed. http://twitter.com/gubatron On Sat, Aug 23, 2014

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

+1000. Don't fix it if it ain't broken. Don't kill community support. I for instance wouldn't have contributed or forked if the project hadn't been on github. "Bitcoin has currently 4132 forks on Github. This means that you can get contributions by pull requests from 4132 developers. That is a HUG

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsidering github

-1 http://twitter.com/gubatron On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > As a first step, one possibility is putting the primary repo on > > bitcoin.org somewhere, and simply mirroring that to github for each > > push. > >

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Encrypt bitcoin messages

"I suggest that Bitcoin Core should generate a public/private key pair and share the public one with peers." I've not read the p2p protocol of Bitcoin core, but I suppose the initial handshake between 2 peers would be the ideal place to exchange a public keys. would it make sense to generate a ne

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Building from git on OSX

a million thanks for this FYI http://twitter.com/gubatron On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > Just FYI for anybody else building on OSX: > > libtool is a new dependency, so if you update to git HEAD and have trouble > building: > > brew install libtool > (or port install

Re: [Bitcoin-development] [QT] Feature proposal: Displaying current Units/Changing Units with status bar control.

With this I'll continue then to work on this with the addition of: - Showing the current unit on the header column title "Amount ($unitHere)" - Will make sure the user cannot change the current unit of display by mistake by adding a confirmation dialog. Thanks all for the feedback! Angel. http://

Re: [Bitcoin-development] have there been complains about network congestion? (router crashes, slow internet when running Bitcoin nodes)

gt; > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Angel Leon wrote: > >> I was wondering if the level of traffic a Bitcoin node gets is or will be >> so high that you have heard/will hear complains like the following: >> >> >>1. a home router that crashes or slows do

Re: [Bitcoin-development] have there been complains about network congestion? (router crashes, slow internet when running Bitcoin nodes)

at 12:30 PM, Matt Whitlock wrote: > On Tuesday, 8 April 2014, at 12:13 pm, Angel Leon wrote: > > I was wondering if we have or expect to have these issues in the future, > > perhaps uTP could help greatly the performance of the entire network at > > some point. > >

[Bitcoin-development] have there been complains about network congestion? (router crashes, slow internet when running Bitcoin nodes)

I was wondering if the level of traffic a Bitcoin node gets is or will be so high that you have heard/will hear complains like the following: 1. a home router that crashes or slows down when its NAT pin-hole table overflows, triggered by many TCP connections. 2. a home router that crashe

Re: [Bitcoin-development] [QT] how to disable block verification for faster UI testing?

Wladimir wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Angel Leon wrote: > >> the command line options mention a -checklevel parameter. >> I've been passing 0 assuming there'd be little to no verification, but >> it's happened a few times that when I ope

[Bitcoin-development] [QT] how to disable block verification for faster UI testing?

the command line options mention a -checklevel parameter. I've been passing 0 assuming there'd be little to no verification, but it's happened a few times that when I open the official binary (while not doing development) there's some sort of database corruption and Bitcoin-Qt needs to reindex blo