> On Jul 28, 2015, at 8:46 PM, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>
>> GUYS, WE’VE KNOWN ABOUT THESE PROBLEMS AND HAVE TALKED ABOUT THEM FOR
>> YEARS ALREADY…AND IT SEEMS PRACTICALLY NOTHING HAS HAPPENED…
>
> What is the incentive for someone with high level technical skills to spend
> al
GUYS, WE’VE KNOWN ABOUT THESE PROBLEMS AND HAVE TALKED ABOUT THEM FOR
YEARS ALREADY…AND IT SEEMS PRACTICALLY NOTHING HAS HAPPENED…
What is the incentive for someone with high level technical skills to
spend all their time developing and testing code? Especially since the
code is generally the
> On Jul 28, 2015, at 7:40 PM, Eric Lombrozo wrote:
>
> Note: many of these ideas are neither my own nor really all that new, but it
> seems in the past we’ve given up too easily on actually moving forward on
> them despite their critical importance.
In retrospect I regret not having made thi
In the interest of promoting some constructive discussion on this, let me start
by making a few proposals to correct the listed issues.
Note: many of these ideas are neither my own nor really all that new, but it
seems in the past we’ve given up too easily on actually moving forward on them
des
I agree that the historical reasons are irrelevant from an engineering
perspective. But they still set a context for the discussion…and might help
shed some insight into the motivations behind some of the participants. It’s
also good to know these things to counter arguments that start with “But
Does it matter even in the slightest why the block size limit was put in
place? It does not. Bitcoin is a decentralized payment network, and the
relationship between utility (block size) and decentralization is
empirical. Why the 1MB limit was put in place at the time might be a
historically intere
> On Jul 28, 2015, at 5:43 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman
> wrote:
>
>
>> Enter a “temporary” anti-spam measure - a one megabyte block size limit.
>> Let’s test this out, then increase it once we see how things work. So far so
>> good…
>>
>
> The block size limit was put in place as an anti-DoS me
> Enter a “temporary” anti-spam measure - a one megabyte block size limit.
> Let’s test this out, then increase it once we see how things work. So far so
> good…
>
The block size limit was put in place as an anti-DoS measure (monster blocks),
not "anti-spam". It was never intended to have any
I only got into Bitcoin in 2011, after the block size limit was already in
place. After going through some more of the early history of Bitcoin to better
understand the origins of this, things are starting to come into better
perspective.
Initially there was no block size limit - it was thought
That's not what I said. We don't seem able to communicate with each other
efficiently, probably my fault since English is not my native language. But
I don't want to use more of my time (or yours) in this discussion, since
it's clearly unproductive.
On Jul 28, 2015 6:45 PM, "Tom Harding" wrote:
>
Jorge,
We obviously disagree fundamentally on the role of societal adoption, in
the system that Satoshi designed.
Adoption is well ahead of Satoshi's schedule, and the measure of this is
the exchange rate. It is at once an imperfect measure, and one of the
most perfect markets that has ever
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello all,
I'd like to disclose a vulnerability I discovered in September 2014,
which became unexploitable when BIP66's 95% threshold was reached
earlier this month.
## Short description:
A specially-crafted transaction could have forked the blockch
s/no offense taken/no offense intended
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Tom Harding wrote:
> On 7/24/2015 2:24 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:
>
>> Regarding "increasing the exchange rate" it would be really nice to
>> just push a button and double bitcoin's price just before the next
>> subsidy halving, but unfortunately that's something out
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Wladimir J. van der Laan
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 04:30:06PM +0200, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> But I thought you also wanted Bitcoin Core to use libconsensus instead
>> of just having a subtree/subrepository like it currently does with
>> libsec
Ok, I'm going to separate terms: current-libconsensus from theoretical
future-libconsensus (implementing ALL consensus rules).
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Eric Voskuil wrote:
> libsecp256k1 has it's own repository, libbitcoinconsensus doesn't. A
> separate repository was what I considered a
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:40:42PM -0700, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> It's a performance sacrifice, and then there's the OpenSSL dependency,
> but these are both optional within our stack - so the application
> developer has the option. So the only downside is that we are
> maintaining t
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 04:30:06PM +0200, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I think there were some misunderstandings in our previous conversation
> about this topic.
> I completely agree with having a separated repository for libconsensus
> (that's the whole point, alternative implementations
18 matches
Mail list logo
