ient developers
involved too makes it much harder, especially as users have to
actually upgrade.
I started a thread on the development mailing list with your
suggestion, by the way.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Daniel
Lidstrom <li
My views on censorship resistance in the face of scaling:
1) I expect if I'm not careful about preserving my privacy with the way I
use Bitcoin, then I will always run the risk of being censored by miners.
This means connecting to the network anonymously, not reusing addresses,
and perhaps even mi
Reserving my judgement until I've though about it more (design by committee
scares me, and this voting sounds expensive), I think the SPV-verifiable
moving median can be done by binning the space of block size limits, and
for each node in the UTXO tree, a value for each bin is stored which is the
s
The location of a tx in the blockchain can be encoded in n=log2(h)+log2(t)
bits, where h is the block height, and t is the number of transactions in
the block. Currently h~250,000 and t~500, so n~27. A CVC phoneme encodes
~10.7 bits *, so a transaction today can be located in the blockchain with
hut-guvgis
~bobfej-jessuk
~furcos-diwhuw
~wokryx-wilrox
~bygbyl-caggos
~vewcyv-jyjsal
~daxsaf-cywkul
They're not that bad IMHO, especially if you get to pick a decent one from
a bunch.
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Daniel Lidstrom wrote:
> The location of a tx in the blockchain can be e
n.
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Daniel Lidstrom wrote:
>
>> A couple more thoughts on this:
>>
>> 1) Both c and k can be kept if c is pronounced 'ch', giving ~10.9 bits
>> per phoneme.
>> 2) An extra phoneme (4 encode 43 bits total) give
t attaching a name to it.
>
> BTW I keep phone numbers in an address book ;)
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Daniel Lidstrom wrote:
>
>> Fair enough, though people still manage okay with phone numbers. And a
>> decentralized naming system seems to co
Hey Peter, something seems wrong with your above analysis: I think a miner
would withhold his block not because it leads to a greater probability of
winning the next one, but because it increases his expected revenue.
Suppose a cabal with fraction q of the total hashing power is n blocks
ahead on
> Of course, in reality smaller miners can just mine on top of block headers
> and include no transactions and do no validation, but that is extremely
> harmful to the security of Bitcoin.
If it's only during the few seconds that it takes to to verify the block,
then would this really be that big
9 matches
Mail list logo
