One consideration of exposing this in QT is that it may encourage users to
generate paper wallets(which are generally used and recommended for cold
storage) from online machines, rendering them moreso lukewarm rather than
cold, since the keys weren't generated in an air-gapped environment. When
us
I rather like this idea, I like that we're taking block scaling back to a
technical method rather than political. BIP100 is frightening to me as it
gives a disproportionate amount of power to the miners, who can already
control their own blocksize with a soft cap. It also seems silly to worry
abo
"This is already possible. Just nLockTime your withdrawls for some future
block. Don't sign any transaction that isn't nLockTime'd at least N blocks
beyond the present tip."
This would have prevented the Bitfinex hack if BitGo did this, but it
wouldn't have helped if the Bitfinex offline key had b
The purpose of this list is highly technical discussion, not political
disagreements.
Is this particular proposal encumbered by a licensing type, patent, or
pending patent which would preclude it from being used in the bitcoin
project? If not, you're wildly off topic.
On Oct 2, 2016 12:11 PM, "P
"You miss something obvious that makes this attack actually free of cost.
Nothing will "cost them more in transaction fees". A miner can create
thousands of transactions paying to himself, and not broadcast them to
the network, but hold them and include them in the blocks he mines. The
fees are col
Comment on #1. You're dropping the blocksize limit to 300KB and only
reaching the limit that we have in place today 7 years later? We're
already at capacity today, surely you're not serious with this proposal?
When you promised code for a hard forking block size increase in the HK
agreement I don
On Jan 26, 2017 10:15 PM, "Luke Dashjr" wrote:
On Friday, January 27, 2017 3:04:50 AM Andrew Johnson wrote:
> Comment on #1. You're dropping the blocksize limit to 300KB and only
> reaching the limit that we have in place today 7 years later?
The limit only drops all the way to 300k if it activ
Thanks for replying, I'd be interested to see what you would come up with
today using the same methodology, seeing as max single hard drive capacity
has roughly doubled, global average internet bandwidth has increased 31%
from 4.8Mbps to 6.3Mbps(sourced from Akamai State of the Internet reports
201
You're never going to reach 100% agreement, and stifling the network
literally forever to please a tiny minority is daft.
On Feb 8, 2017 8:52 AM, "alp alp via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
10% say literally never. That seems like a significant disenfranchisement
an
It is when you're talking about making a choice and 6.3x more people prefer
something else. Doing nothing is a choice as well.
Put another way, if 10% supported increasing the 21M coin cap and 63% were
against, would you seriously consider doing it?
On Feb 8, 2017 9:57 AM, "alp alp" wrote:
> 10
If a small dissenting minority can block all forward progress then bitcoin
is no longer interesting. What an incredibly simple attack vector...
No need to break any cryptography, find a bug to exploit, build tens of
millions of dollars in mining hardware, spend lots of bitcoin on fees to
flood th
I think this is an excellent idea. I consider myself to be extremely
data-driven and logical in my thinking, and have still fallen victim to
thinking "oh great, what's on
about now?" when seeing something posted or proposed.
And vice versa, it prevents people from being more partial to a bad or n
By doing this you're significantly changing the economic incentives behind
bitcoin mining. How can you reliably invest in hardware if you have no idea
when or if your profitability is going to be cut by 50-75% based on a whim?
You may also inadvertently create an entirely new attack vector if 50-7
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:47 AM John Hardy wrote:
> By doing this you're significantly changing the economic incentives
behind bitcoin mining. How can you reliably invest in hardware if you have
no idea when or if your profitability is going to be cut by 50-75% based on
a whim?
Of course, that
What's stopping these users from running a pruned node? Not every node
needs to store a complete copy of the blockchain.
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:18 AM David Vorick via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Perhaps you are fortunate to have a home computer that has mor
I believe that as we continue to add users to the system by scaling
capacity that we will see more new nodes appear, but I'm at a bit of a loss
as to how to empirically prove it.
I do see your point on increasing load on archival nodes, but the majority
of that load is going to come from new nodes
16 matches
Mail list logo
