-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2015-06-20 19:19, Eric Lombrozo wrote:
On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:37 PM, justusranv...@riseup.net wrote:
Signed PGP part
On 2015-06-20 18:20, Jorge Timón wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Eric Lombrozo elombr...@gmail.com
wrote:
If we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2015-06-19 15:11, Peter Todd wrote:
If you ask me to pay you 1BTC at address A and I create tx1 that pays
1BTC to A1 and 2BTC of chain to C, what's wrong with me creating tx2
that still pays 1BTC to A, but now only pays 1.999BTC to C? I'm not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2015-06-19 10:39, Peter Todd wrote:
Yesterday F2Pool, currently the largest pool with 21% of the hashing
power, enabled full replace-by-fee (RBF) support after discussions
with
me. This means that transactions that F2Pool has
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2015-06-19 16:36, Matt Whitlock wrote:
On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 3:53 pm, justusranv...@riseup.net wrote:
I'd also like to note that prima facie doesn't mean always, it
means
that the default assumption, unless proven otherwise.
Why
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2015-06-19 16:42, Eric Lombrozo wrote:
If we want a non-repudiation mechanism in the protocol, we should
explicitly define one rather than relying on “prima facie”
assumptions. Otherwise, I would recommend not relying on the existence
of a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2015-06-19 15:37, Eric Lombrozo wrote:
OK, a few things here:
The Bitcoin network was designed (or should be designed) with the
requirement that it can withstand deliberate double-spend attacks that
can come from anywhere at any time…and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2015-06-19 17:50, Jeff Garzik wrote:
No. You cannot know which is the 'right' or wrong transaction. One tx
has
obvious nSequence adjustments, the other - the refund transaction - may
not.
I'm still not seeing a case where a node could
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2015-06-18 16:28, Jeff Garzik wrote:
This is an engineering list. The quote precisely describes how the
bitcoin
consensus system functions.
Users' choice is largely binary: Follow the rules, or bitcoin software
ignores you.
Software
On 2015-06-16 07:55, Aaron Voisine wrote:
Suppose a billion mobile phones wanted to run SPV wallets tomorrow.
Who
would provide the nodes they would need connect to?
The SPV wallet author would if they wanted their wallet to function.
How will the SPV wallet users pay for this service?
On 2015-06-16 03:49, Kevin Greene wrote:
Hah, fair enough, there is no such thing as the right way to do
anything. But I still think punishing users who use SPV wallets is a
less-than-ideal way to incentive people to run full nodes. Right now
SPV is
the best way that exists for mobile
10 matches
Mail list logo
