On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Ashley Holman wrote:
> * As far as I can tell, this shouldn't change any game theory or incentives
> because nodes still receive blocks exactly as they do now, just sooner. The
> difference is, invalid blocks that meet the PoW will be broadcast to
> everyone, but
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Most companies (Google certainly included) have therefore banned their staff
> from reading patents,
Bitcoin is not Google though, and applying the same patent protocols
to Bitcoin as in Google is drawing a false equivalence between the
two. Go
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Peter Grigor wrote:
> This was originally submitted to the bitcoin github issue manager. I'm
> re-posting here.
>
> I propose the transaction fee should be calculated from a percentage of the
> input amount divided by the confirmations of the input multiplied by th
[Ick, resending to list due to From: snafu]
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> What specifically do you dislike about X.509? The technical standard or
> the infrastructure around it? (IE the centralized authorities)
I'm not the one who was complaining, but what I dislike is th
4 matches
Mail list logo
