On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 9:42:14 PM Allen Piscitello wrote:
> That being said, it's a huge chicken and egg problem. No one wants to go
> off the reference client since it could lead to working on a forked chain
> as a miner or having bad data as a client.
Thankfully, miners are incentivised
I think formalizing the specification could go a long way and encouraging
alternate implementations is going to be the best way to reduce unexpected
small bugs having a bad effect except on the "buggy" node.
That being said, it's a huge chicken and egg problem. No one wants to go
off the referenc
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:05:56PM +0200, Martin Sustrik wrote:
>> On 23/10/13 21:40, Peter Todd wrote:
>>
>> >The reference implementation is the specification - the "specification"
>> >on the wiki is best thought of as a set of Coles Notes on
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:05:56PM +0200, Martin Sustrik wrote:
> On 23/10/13 21:40, Peter Todd wrote:
>
> >The reference implementation is the specification - the "specification"
> >on the wiki is best thought of as a set of Coles Notes on the real
> >specification. If you don't already understan
On 23/10/13 21:40, Peter Todd wrote:
> The reference implementation is the specification - the "specification"
> on the wiki is best thought of as a set of Coles Notes on the real
> specification. If you don't already understand that and the nuance of
> that statement you should assume the protoco
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 09:38:31AM +0200, Martin Sustrik wrote:
> On 22/10/13 16:08, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > All that is good practice, but we should avoid adding burdensome
> > process that might discourage BIP writing.
> >
> > Consider a distributed approach: if you feel a draft needs more
> > se
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 08:02:07AM -0700, Ron wrote:
> I feel that I must respond to the statements that
> 1.
> the Bitcoin codebase is actually really
> simple and readable.
>
> 2.
> However remember that the implications of that
> codebase are anything but simple; there's lots of reasons to th
From: "bitcoin-development-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net"
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 3:38 AM
Subject: Bitcoin-development Digest, Vol 29, Issue 20
Send Bitcoin-development mailing list submissions to
On 22/10/13 16:08, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> All that is good practice, but we should avoid adding burdensome
> process that might discourage BIP writing.
>
> Consider a distributed approach: if you feel a draft needs more
> sections or better language, submit a pull request yourself and help
> communi
9 matches
Mail list logo
