une 15, 2015 4:16 AM
> Cc: Bitcoin Dev
> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] comments on BIP 100
>
> My understanding of this debate is that there are some people who want to
> keep Bitcoin at 1MB block limit, and there are some who want to increase it.
>
> I for one am curious
ebroad (sourceforge)
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 4:16 AM
Cc: Bitcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] comments on BIP 100
My understanding of this debate is that there are some people who want to keep
Bitcoin at 1MB block limit, and there are some who want to increase it.
I for one am curious to s
My understanding of this debate is that there are some people who want to
keep Bitcoin at 1MB block limit, and there are some who want to increase it.
I for one am curious to see how 1MB limited bitcoin evolves, and I believe
we can all have a chance to see this AND hard-fork bitcoin to remove the
>
> The fact that using a centralized service is easier isn't a good reason
> IMHO. It disregards the long-term, and introduces systemic risk.
>
Well sure, that's easy for you to say, but you have a salary :) Other
developers may find the incremental benefits of decentralisation low vs
adding addi
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
>
> Since you keep bringing this up, I'll try to clarify this once again.
>>
>
> I understand the arguments against it. And I think you are agreeing with
> me - Adam is bemoaning the way developers outsource stuff to third party
> services, and
>
> Since you keep bringing this up, I'll try to clarify this once again.
>
I understand the arguments against it. And I think you are agreeing with me
- Adam is bemoaning the way developers outsource stuff to third party
services, and suggesting it is relevant to the block size debate. And we
are
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> I persevered for several months to add a very small "API" I needed for my
> app to Bitcoin Core, and it was in the end a waste of time. There are no
> actionable items left for the getutxo patch, regardless, I had to fork
> Bitcoin to get it o
>OK. O() notation normally refers to computational complexity, but ... I
still don't get it - the vast >majority of users don't run relaying nodes
that take part in gossiping. They run web or SPV >wallets. And the nodes
that do take part don't connect to every other node.
It's a little scary, IMO,
>
> That was probably insufficiently specific, let me rephrase: I am
> referring to the trend that much of the industry is built on web2.0
> technology using bitcoin via a library in a web scripting language
OK, good to hear that. I'm not happy about the use of web technologies in
wallets/service
> StrawPay hasn't published any details of their work publicly; if they
> wanted credit on the mailing list they should have done that.
>
There's a brief discussion here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2r3ri7/strawpay_cheap_and_secure_micropayments/
But yes, they are developing it be
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:23:44AM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
> >
> > One thing that is concerning is that few in industry seem inclined to
> > take any development initiatives or even integrate a library.
>
>
> Um, you mean except all the people who have built more scalable wallets
> over the past
> On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 05:53:05PM -0700, Eric Lombrozo wrote:
>> I think the whole complexity talk is missing the bigger issue.
>>
>> Sure, per block validation scales linearly (or quasilinearly…there’s an
>> O(log n) term in there somewher
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 05:53:05PM -0700, Eric Lombrozo wrote:
> I think the whole complexity talk is missing the bigger issue.
>
> Sure, per block validation scales linearly (or quasilinearly…there’s an O(log
> n) term in there somewhere but it’s probably dominated by linear factors at
> curren
Adding - in re pay-to-FOO - these schemes are inherently short term, such
that it is near-impossible for the market to plan for what happens in 12+
months.
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Adam Back wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I made these comment
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Adam Back wrote:
> Hi
>
> I made these comments elsewhere, but I think really we should be
> having these kind of conversations here rather than scattered around.
>
> These are about Jeff Garzik's outline draft BIP 100 I guess this is
> the latest draft: (One goo
> On Jun 14, 2015, at 5:53 PM, Eric Lombrozo wrote:
>
> I think the whole complexity talk is missing the bigger issue.
>
> Sure, per block validation scales linearly (or quasilinearly…there’s an O(log
> n) term in there somewhere but it’s probably dominated by linear factors at
> current leve
I think the whole complexity talk is missing the bigger issue.
Sure, per block validation scales linearly (or quasilinearly…there’s an O(log
n) term in there somewhere but it’s probably dominated by linear factors at
current levels…asymptotic limits don’t always apply very well to finite
system
Hi Mike
On 15 June 2015 at 00:23, Mike Hearn wrote:
>> One thing that is concerning is that few in industry seem inclined to
>> take any development initiatives or even integrate a library.
>
> Um, you mean except all the people who have built more scalable wallets over
> the past few years, whic
>
> One thing that is concerning is that few in industry seem inclined to
> take any development initiatives or even integrate a library.
Um, you mean except all the people who have built more scalable wallets
over the past few years, which is the only reason anyone can even use
Bitcoin from thei
19 matches
Mail list logo
