On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
Dude, calm down.
Well hold on, his concerns are real and he seems perfectly calm to me and
others apparently.
and Gavin already said long ago he wouldn't just commit something, even
though he has the ability to do so.
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Andrew onelinepr...@gmail.com wrote:
You should also keep in mind the big picture when it comes to
decentralization. If the hard drives (or tapes) can only be produced by a
small number of large companies like Western Digital or Seagate, then you
can't really
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.name wrote:
- Perhaps the hard block size limit should be a function of the actual block
sizes over some
trailing sampling period. For example, take the median block size among the
most recent
2016 blocks and multiply it by
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
Maybe you dislike that idea. It's so centralised. So let's say Gavin
commits his patch, because his authority is equal to all other committers.
Someone else rolls it back. Gavin sets up a cron job to keep committing the
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Matt Corallo bitcoin-l...@bluematt.me wrote:
the maximum block size. However, there hasnt been any discussion on this
mailing list in several years as far as I can tell.
Well, there has been significant public discussion in #bitcoin-wizards
on irc.freenode.net
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
For an emergency transition the user is probably better off with an
explicit unstructured mass private key export, and a sweep function;
and guaranteeing compatibility with that is much easier; and because
it moves
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org wrote:
away from that too) is how about we explore ways to improve practical
security of fast confirmation transactions, and if we find something
better, then we can help people migrate to that before deprecating the
current
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org wrote:
That its highly complex to maintain strict consensus between bitcoin
versions, does not justify consensus rewrite experiments
Correct. However, those maintenance costs absolutely do justify working
towards formal proofs of
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
I've pinged some people privately but also pinging the list… no
commentary on this proposal?
One possible reason is that non-subscribed users aren't able to access
the file through sourceforge. The attachment through
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com 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.
Smaller first step would be to mirror the git repository on
bitcoin.org, which is
10 matches
Mail list logo
