Re: [Bitcoin-development] New attack identified and potential solution described: Dropped-transaction spam attack against the blocksize limit

2015-06-08 Thread Btc Drak
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Raystonn . wrote: No, with no blocksize limit, a spammer would would flood the network with transactions until they ran out of money. I think you are forgetting even if you remove the blocksize limit, there is still a hard message size

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

2015-06-01 Thread Btc Drak
I did wonder what the post actually meant, I recommend appending /s after sarcasm so it's clear. Lots gets lost in text. But I agree with you btw his response was not particularly tactful. On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: By reversing Mike's language to

Re: [Bitcoin-development] CLTV opcode allocation; long-term plans?

2015-05-12 Thread Btc Drak
, Peter Todd wrote: On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 01:54:33AM +0100, Btc Drak wrote: That said, if people have strong feelings about this, I would be willing to make OP_CLTV work as follows: nLockTime 1 OP_CLTV Where the 1 selects absolute mode, and all others

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase

2015-05-07 Thread Btc Drak
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: And I'll ask again. Do you have a *specific, credible alternative*? Because so far I'm not seeing one. I think you are rubbing against your own presupposition that people must find and alternative right now. Quite a lot here do

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase

2015-05-07 Thread Btc Drak
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Gavin Costin wrote: Can anyone opposed to this proposal articulate in plain english the worst case scenario(s) if it goes ahead? Some people in the conversation appear to be uncomfortable, perturbed, defensive etc about the proposal ….

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase

2015-05-07 Thread Btc Drak
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: Right now there is this nice warm fuzzy notion that decisions in Bitcoin Core are made by consensus. Controversial changes are avoided. I am trying to show you that this is just marketing. Consensus is arrived when the people

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase

2015-05-07 Thread Btc Drak
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Mike Hearn 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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] CLTV opcode allocation; long-term plans?

2015-05-04 Thread Btc Drak
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Peter Todd wrote: Matt Corallo brought up¹ the issue of OP_NOP scarcity on the mempool only CLTV pull-req²: I like merging this, but doing both CLTV things in one swoop would be really nice. Certainly if we're gonna use one of the

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cartographer

2014-12-29 Thread Btc Drak
Mike, In all seriousness, are you on the payroll of the NSA or similar to repeatedly attempt to introduce privacy leaks[1] and weaknesses[2] into the ecosystem not to mention logical fallacies like ad hominem attacks; disruption[3] and FUD[4]? Why do you answer objections by hand waving and

Re: [Bitcoin-development] ACK NACK utACK Concept ACK

2014-12-16 Thread Btc Drak
Would someone also clarify the use of nit for nitpicking and how it plays in the role of consensus? It seems like it's used for minor complaints/preferences. Drak On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Wladimir

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Recent EvalScript() changes mean CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY can't be merged

2014-12-15 Thread Btc Drak
This is a pretty good example about refactoring discipline as well as premature/over optimisation. We all want to see more modular code, but the first steps should just be to relocate blocks of code so everything is more logically organised in smaller files (especially for consensus critical

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bitcoind as a library

2014-11-28 Thread Btc Drak
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Oliver Egginger wrote: Sorry for the off-topic but while reading this I like to ask you for picocoin, see: For a research project I'm looking for a C library to operate some block chain analysis

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size

2014-11-18 Thread Btc Drak
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Flavien Charlon wrote: My main concern with OP_RETURN is that it seems to encourage people to use the blockchain as a convenient transport channel The number one user of the blockchain as a storage and transport mechanism is

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP process

2014-10-19 Thread Btc Drak
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 8:17 AM, xor wrote: I joined the list when Bitcoin was already in the 10-billions of market capitalization, and it actually really surprised me how low the traffic is here given the importance of Bitcoin. So as a random stranger to the

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP process

2014-10-15 Thread Btc Drak
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Adam Back wrote: please not google groups *, I'd vote for sourceforge or other simple open list software over google groups. Please not sourceforge. * Google lists are somehow a little proprietary or gmail lockin focused eg it makes