Recently China has updated its firewall blocking bitcoin sites and pools. Whether this is simple blacklist or moresophisticatedpacket targeting is uncertain, however this update did spefically target VPN handshakes.
Sent:Monday, April 07, 2014 at 1:07 PM
From:Drak d...@zikula.org
To:Mike
Yeah I'm expecting port 8333 to go away in China at some point. Actually I
was expecting that years ago and was kind of surprised that the suppression
was being done via banks. Guess the GFW operators were just slow to catch
up.
On 20 May 2014 10:16, bitcoingr...@gmx.com wrote:
Recently China
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org wrote:
hmm Yes and this topic now is more than a bit non dev related. Sorry about
that. There seems to be no convenient mailing list format for non-dev stuff
or I would Cc and set Reply-To for example? (Web forums somewhat suck
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:15:44AM +0200, bitcoingr...@gmx.com wrote:
Recently China has updated its firewall blocking bitcoin sites and pools.
Whether this is simple blacklist or more sophisticated packet targeting is
uncertain, however this update did spefically target VPN
Unlikely. I doubt any significant portion of miners in china will continue to
mine on a china-specific chain, since it will certainly be outmined by
non-Chinese miners, and will be orphaned eventually.
More likely is that mining interests in china will make special arrangements to
circumvent
I completed a whitepaper for Bitcoin a proof-of-stake version which uses a
single nomadic verifiable mint agent and distributed replication of a single
blockchain by compensated full nodes to achieve 6-hop, sub-second transaction
acknowledgement times. Plus it pays dividends to holders instead
Referring to the subsidy for miners as wasting it on miners isn't going to
garner you much favor.
On May 20, 2014 11:12:53 AM CDT, Stephen Reed stephenr...@yahoo.com wrote:
I completed a whitepaper for Bitcoin a proof-of-stake version which
uses a single nomadic verifiable mint agent and
Actually I read the paper now as it was linked somewhere else also, and its
quite good. So now I can summarize it:
Its a writeup of bitcoin in 29 pages, which covers things in the original
bitcoin paper but with more detail of formats, scripts with some examples,
formats etc. Quite nice paper,
Has there ever been serious discussion on extending the protocol to
support UDP transport? That would allow for NAT traversal and for many
more people to run effective nodes. I'm also curious if it could be
made improve block propagation time.
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Gmail
Yes, i spec'd out the UDP traversal of the P2P protocol. It seems
reasonable especially for inv messages.
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Andy Alness a...@coinbase.com wrote:
Has there ever been serious discussion on extending the protocol to
support UDP transport? That would allow for NAT
In my opinion, the number of full nodes doesn't matter (as long as
it's enough to satisfy demand by other nodes).
Correct. Still, a high number of nodes has a few other benefits:
1) The more nodes there are, the cheaper it should be to run each one,
given that the bandwidth and CPU
Awesome! I'm assuming this is it:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=156769.0
It would be interesting (at least to me) to take this a step further
and offer UDP as a full TCP replacement capable of STUN-assisted NAT
traversal and possibly swarmed blockchain syncs. It would require open
TCP
Indeed -- you must reinvent TCP over UDP, ultimately, to handle blocks
and large TXs.
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Andy Alness a...@coinbase.com wrote:
Awesome! I'm assuming this is it:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=156769.0
It would be interesting (at least to me) to take this
13 matches
Mail list logo
