On 09/01/2015 03:29 PM, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 01:55:43PM -0500, Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>
>> * They should own their bitcoins, meaning that they retain exclusive
>> control over their balances. Even more precisely, the network must
>> always hon
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 01:55:43PM -0500, Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> * They should own their bitcoins, meaning that they retain exclusive
> control over their balances. Even more precisely, the network must
> always honour the conditions of the scripts associated with unspent outputs.
On 2015-09-01 18:37, Eric Voskuil wrote:
Whether intended or otherwise this is an attack on the idea of
decentralized bitcoin development. The option to fork or roll your own
is open source, not decentralization. Decentralization requires
*actually doing so*. One step down that path, even for a f
On 09/01/2015 09:51 AM, Monarch via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On 2015-09-01 15:59, Dave Collins via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> I'd be interested to know about these supposed btcd mainnet forks that
>> have occurred due to a consensus failure since it came out of alpha.
>> I'll go ahead and save you some rese
On 2015-09-01 15:59, Dave Collins via bitcoin-dev wrote:
I'd be interested to know about these supposed btcd mainnet forks that
have occurred due to a consensus failure since it came out of alpha.
I'll go ahead and save you some research time - there hasn't been one.
I'm not claiming there will n
I'd be interested to know about these supposed btcd mainnet forks that
have occurred due to a consensus failure since it came out of alpha.
I'll go ahead and save you some research time - there hasn't been one.
I'm not claiming there will never be one as that would be just as
foolish as claiming Bi
On 2015-08-31 23:47, s7r via bitcoin-dev wrote:
The problem is there is no other implementation out there which comes
near the quality of the code in Bitcoin Core. I am actually eager to
try other implementations as well, but something serious, because
Bitcoin itself is a payment protocol not som
On 2015-08-31 23:32, Peter R wrote:
On 2015-08-31, at 2:24 PM, Allen Piscitello via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
It is my opinion, then, that we should support multiple
implementations of the Bitcoin protocol, working to reduce the
network's dependency on Core.
That would be incredibly foolish give
On Aug 31, 2015 3:01 PM, "Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> You keep using the word "decentralized" without explaining (and most
> likely, understanding) what it means.
I believe he explained very well what he meant by decentralized, please
stop sugg
>>>I would be OK with $100 transaction fee
Unless you're relying upon some hypothetical hyper-inflation of the USD,
how does one accept or justify such fees given the title (and intentions)
of Satoshi's own white paper and corresponding software?
I believe the key words "cash system" must be kept
> Bitcoin is a decentralized currency which allows any person the
ability to transact in a way that does not require specific trust in
any particular party.
Bitcoin is only a partial solution to the Byzantine general problem.
Users do need to trust that things such as mining and development
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Decentralization depends on the context and does not have a definition
in a form that it was demanded... I can confirm we have people in our
community which do understand decentralization, and quite good
actually, just there is no definition if the f
On 2015-08-31, at 2:24 PM, Allen Piscitello via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Even so, decentralization is a means to an end - not an end-goal. It is
> essential for Bitcoin to be a useful alternative, of course.
I agree. What about decentralization in development? Gavin recently said that
he wants
On 08/31/2015 05:53 PM, Monarch wrote:
>
> Bitcoin is a decentralized currency which allows any person the
> ability to transact in a way that does not require specific trust in
> any particular party. Users can independently verify that
> transactions they receive are valid and confirmed, with s
On 2015-08-31 21:54, Justus Ranvier wrote:
You keep using the word "decentralized" without explaining (and most
likely, understanding) what it means.
Decentralization is a ubiquitous term within the Bitcoin, and the
definition is by no measure new or often confused. It is realizing
that syst
On 08/31/2015 04:42 PM, Monarch wrote:
> The justification for the existence of Bitcoins hinges on it. What is
> described in the whitepaper is a system without the trust of third
> parties to process electronic payments, this can not exist without
> decentralization. Absent any unforseen revelat
On 2015-08-31 21:24, Allen Piscitello wrote:
Even so, decentralization is a means to an end - not an end-goal. It
is essential for Bitcoin to be a useful alternative, of course.
The justification for the existence of Bitcoins hinges on it. What is
described in the whitepaper is a system with
Even so, decentralization is a means to an end - not an end-goal. It is
essential for Bitcoin to be a useful alternative, of course.
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Monarch via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On 2015-08-31 20:27, Justus Ranvier wrote:
>
>> You don'
On 2015-08-31 20:27, Justus Ranvier wrote:
You don't understand what value proof of work provides, or what
features
differentiate good money from poor money, and you can't make a
defensible statement of Bitcoin's value proposition.
Because you can't do these things, you assume nobody else can d
On 08/31/2015 03:06 PM, Monarch via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> What is Bitcoin if not decentralized?
>
> Bitcoin the most awkward, unprivate and damaging currencies ever
> created. It is terribly slow for general use, and it is very
> difficult for users to get over the technical hurdles required to us
On 2015-08-31 19:11, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote:
I think your summary of what people actually want from
decentralisation is pretty good, Justus.
I don't believe that any Bitcoin user actually cares
about decentralization, because none of them I've asked can define
that term.
+1 Insight
I think your summary of what people actually want from decentralisation is
pretty good, Justus.
> I don't believe that any Bitcoin user actually cares
> about decentralization, because none of them I've asked can define that
> term.
>
+1 Insightful
It's been quite impressive to see so many Bitc
On 08/30/2015 01:38 AM, Adam Ritter via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Still, it doesn't have anything that is practical for me as an user of
> the Bitcoin network (I use it for storing long-term purchase value, as
> most of the people who I know): it doesn't help me if I still need to
> pay transaction fees
Hi Greg,
>> I agree that miners may change their level of centralization. This neither
>> affects the model nor the results presented in the paper.
>
> It has tremdous significance to the real-world impact of your results.
The paper makes no claims about "miners changing their level of
central
I don't really see any problem with the paper:
All it states is that having the assumption that miners don't
centralize, transaction fees don't go to zero even without the
blocksize limit. I think we can accept this as a nice academic
research, and I believe that it's true.
Still, it doesn't have a
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 4:13 AM, Peter R wrote:
> I agree that miners may change their level of centralization. This neither
> affects the model nor the results presented in the paper.
It has tremdous significance to the real-world impact of your results.
If not for the other errors in your wor
Hi Greg,
> Unfortunately, your work extensive as it was made at least two
> non-disclosed or poorly-disclosed simplifying assumptions and a significant
> system understanding error which, I believe, undermined it completely.
>
> In short these were:
>
> * You assume miners do not have the abilit
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Peter R wrote:
> Dear Greg,
>
> I am moving our conversation into public as I've recently learned that
> you've been forwarding our private email conversation verbatim without
> my permission [I received permission from dpinna to share the email
> below that proves
28 matches
Mail list logo
