On 07/23/2015 07:30 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 2:49 AM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> On 07/22/2015 05:13 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>> Only being partly serious - I strongly am in favor of a sufficiently
>>> modularized codebase that swapping out conse
Eric Voskuil, Alice Larson, others:
Personal attacks or bullying of any kind are not tolerated on this mailing list.
This list is meant to be a low-volume community for technical proposals and
discussion regarding Bitcoin. See the archive for say, 2012, for example.
What Peter Todd or anyone el
There are several reasons why we rejected doing it this way with OpenAlias:
1. It adds complexity for the alias creator. This may seem
unimportant, but the OpenAlias standard was created to empower people
to create their own aliases as simply as possible, not to make it
overly complex.
2. It's ha
Thomas,
I think this is interesting and has some good thoughts behind it. For
clarity, are you recommending that the "_oa2" portion of the domain name be
"hidden" as a way to make it easier to delegate just wallet names from a
zone?
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin
https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc
Thanks for the triggering warning, if not for that I may have gone into
seizures.
e
On 07/27/2015 10:05 AM, Alice Larson via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> The twitter teenage nonsense from Todd is ridiculous:
> https://twitter.com/playatodd (warning, triggering)
signa
You are correct. It is also counterproductive to take cheap shots at
vendors in order to garner consulting revenue. Measuring risk in a
systematic way against known metrics is the way to go. Tweeting,
blogging, and drama are generally counterproductive.
When the issue is raised most of the dev
The ugly thing is I think everyone in this process recognises the
meta-consensus nature of the debate already. Notice how Gavin Andresen's
initial blocksize posts were in the form of a non-technical blog, making
non-technical arguments to the public - not the Core dev team - in ways
not conducive
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:52:20PM -0400, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'd like to talk a bit about my view on the relation between the Bitcoin
> Core project, and the consensus rules of Bitcoin.
>
> I believe it is the responsibility of the maintainers/developers of Bitc
Ok, Thanks
Den 27 jul 2015 11:08 skrev "Jorge Timón" :
>
> On Jul 26, 2015 11:13 PM, "Kalle Rosenbaum" wrote:
> > Do you think we need a bigger nonce? In that case, why?
>
> I don't know, it wasn't me that proposed a bigger nonce. I just wanted to
> point out that the policy limit shouldn't be a
On Jul 26, 2015 11:13 PM, "Kalle Rosenbaum" wrote:
> Do you think we need a bigger nonce? In that case, why?
I don't know, it wasn't me that proposed a bigger nonce. I just wanted to
point out that the policy limit shouldn't be a concern.
___
bitcoin-de
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Kalle Rosenbaum via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> These BIPs have been assigned 120 and 121:
>
Did you break open the bubbly? From the outside it certainly looked harder
than everything else about this proposal combined.
___
11 matches
Mail list logo
