On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Thanks for getting this started.
>
> With regards to the specific proposal, I don't believe it's the best option
> and still plan to eventually implement the original design outlined more
> than a year ago in this thread:
>
> https://bitcoint
> 1) This is cool and useful (but see 3)
> 2) This is significantly less secure than validating an entire blockchain;
> it's certainly worth working out some use cases here in more detail than just
> a sample conversation. More on this below
> 3) What about discovery? Will a client now have the
ge.net"
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 33 - Stratized Nodes
Thanks for getting this started.
With regards to the specific proposal, I don't believe it's the best option and
still plan to eventually implement the original design out
Thanks for this, Amir.
My initial reactions:
1) This is cool and useful (but see 3)
2) This is significantly less secure than validating an entire blockchain;
it's certainly worth working out some use cases here in more detail than
just a sample conversation. More on this below
3) What about disc
Thanks for getting this started.
With regards to the specific proposal, I don't believe it's the best option
and still plan to eventually implement the original design outlined more
than a year ago in this thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7972.msg116285#msg116285
Namely that you
Hi,
Please check out my proposal,
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0033
I want to use the existing Bitcoin protocol to provide this functionality in
order to maintain compatibility. This proposal does not affect current Bitcoin
clients, but allows the parallel system to operate alongside and som
6 matches
Mail list logo
