Awesome graph!
It would be interesting if you could use your Excel voodoo (or whatever graph
app you use) to add density as a heat map, making areas with more blocks red
and regions with less blocks blue…
> On Jun 1, 2015, at 8:42 PM, Tom Harding wrote:
>
> On 6/1/2015 10:21 AM, Adam Back wr
On 6/1/2015 10:21 AM, Adam Back wrote:
> if it stays as is for a year, in a wait and see, reduce spam, see
> fee-pressure take effect as it has before, work on improving improve
> decentralisation metrics, relay latency, and do a blocksize increment
> to kick the can if-and-when it becomes necessar
>
> (at reduced security if it has software that doesnt understand it)
Well, yes. Isn't that rather key to the issue? Whereas by simply
increasing the block size, SPV wallets don't care (same security and
protocol as before) and fully validating wallets can be updated with a very
small code chan
Mike wrote:
>> Businesses who are keen to
>> have more transactions, would make it their problem to implement in
>> their wallet, or ask the wallet vendor/maintainer they're working with
>> to do it. Nothing breaks if they dont use it.
>
>
> I don't see how this is the case. If an exchange support
Hi Adam,
I have more experience than Gavin of building consumer wallets, so I'll
make an attempt to answer your questions.
> Then ask the various wallet developer how long it would take them to
> update
> > their software to support something like this,
>
> I don't think thats any particular conc
Hi Gavin
Sorry for slow response & broken threading - mailbox filled up & only
saw your response on archive.
I do earnestly think opt-in block-size increases are politically
cleaner (gives different people different sized blocks by their own
volition without forcing a compromise) and less risky t
Hello Adam
First of all, thank you for inventing hashcash, which is basically what
bitcoin is!
Some people have said that my proposal, subject line "Scaling Bitcoin with
Subchains" is essentially the idea of blockchain extensions. Though, I
think there is quite a difference between what I propose
My fear now is too much unnecessary complexity. More complex means brittle code, but also fewer programmers working on this, which is a risk.
We shouldn't delay forever until every potential solution has been explored. There's always going to be one more thing to explore.
On 29 May 2015 5:16 pm,
RE: soft-forking an "extension block":
So... go for it, code it up. Implement it in the Bitcoin Core wallet.
Then ask the various wallet developer how long it would take them to update
their software to support something like this, and do some UI mockups of
what the experience would look like for
I discussed the extension block idea on wizards a while back and it is
a way to soft-fork an opt-in block-size increase. Like everything
here there are pros and cons.
The security is better than Raylstonn inferred from Tier's explanation
I think.. It works as Tier described - there is an extensi
10 matches
Mail list logo
