On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 10) Waiting for nVersion bits and CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY will significantly
> delay deployment of CLTV
>
> It's been proposed multiple times that we wait until we can do a single
> soft-f
Agree with all CLTV and nVersionBits points. We should deploy a lock-time
soft-fork ASAP, using the tried and true IsSuperMajoirty test.
However your information regarding BIPs 68 (sequence numbers), 112
(checksequenceverify) and 113 (median time past) is outdated. Debate
regarding semantics has b
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 04:26:12PM -0400, jl2...@xbt.hk wrote:
> +1 for deploying BIP65 immediately without further waiting. Agree
> with all Peter's points.
Thanks!
> By the way, is there any chance to backport it to 0.9? In the
> deployment of BIP66 some miners requested a backport to 0.9 and
>
+1 for deploying BIP65 immediately without further waiting. Agree with
all Peter's points.
If BIP65 has to follow the 0.12 schedule, it will take almost 9 months
from now to complete the softfork. I don't see any good reason to wait
for that long. We have too much talk, too little action.
So
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Kalle Rosenbaum via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> I was mansplaining weak blocks to my wife. She asked a simple question:
>
> Why would I, as a miner, publish a weak block if I find one?
>
> I don't know.
> Sure, I will get faster propagation for my solved block, should I f
Summary
---
It's time to deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.
I've backported the CLTV op-code and a IsSuperMajority() soft-fork to
the v0.10 and v0.11 branches, pull-reqs #6706 and #6707 respectively. A
pull-req for git HEAD for the soft-fork deployment has been open since
June 28th, #6351 - th
Hi,
I have an idea for a gamified bitcoin mining app that I'd like to partner
with someone on that is very good with cryptography and knows the bitcoin
code base well. I have received interest in this from some, but I'm looking
for the ideal candidate to work with. If this is of interest, please e
I was mansplaining weak blocks to my wife. She asked a simple question:
Why would I, as a miner, publish a weak block if I find one?
I don't know.
Sure, I will get faster propagation for my solved block, should I find one.
On the other hand everybody else mining a similar block will enjoy the sa
On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 08:43:24PM -0400, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> https://github.com/petertodd/python-bitcoinlib/tree/python-bitcoinlib-v0.5.0rc1
No issues have been reported with the release candidate, so I've
released v0.5.0 officially pretty much as-is:
https://github.com/petertodd
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 2:39 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Unless the weak block transaction list can be a superset of the block
> transaction list size proportional propagation costs are not totally
> eliminated.
>
The POW threshold could b
Hi All
As part of trying to learn more about the bitcoin builds, I am trying to
recreate the travis CI build system using TeamCity.
Some of the builds work fine, but the windows builds seem to be having a
problem with getting mingw dev:
[08:31:21][Step 3/3] E: Package 'mingw-w64-dev' has no instal
11 matches
Mail list logo
