Re: [Bitcoin-development] questions about bitcoin-XT code fork & non-consensus hard-fork

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 08:33:31PM +0800, Pindar Wong wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Adam Back wrote: > > Dear Adam, All: > > > > At the community's convenience, it would be an honour to arrange

Re: [Bitcoin-development] questions about bitcoin-XT code fork & non-consensus hard-fork

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Adam Back wrote: > Hi Mike > > Well thank you for replying openly on this topic, its helpful. > > I apologise in advance if this gets quite to the point and at times > blunt, but transparency is important, and we owe it to the users who > see Bitcoin as the start

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Various block size proposals

Thanks Bryan for collating these links in one great list. This is very helpful and thanks for sharing it. Feel free to fork https://github.com/EthanHeilman/BlockSizeDebate edit to add the list of proposals and create a pull request to Ethan. There's also a miningconsensus.slack.com group to have

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Meta suggestions for this block size debate

and what isn't, as I > don't have as low-level an understanding as I'd like. I don't feel > qualified. > On Jun 6, 2015 2:34 AM, "Pindar Wong" wrote: > >> Thanks Gabe. >> >> https://github.com/gappleto97/BlockSizeDebate >> >>

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Meta suggestions for this block size debate

d in this email chain. > > I'll be getting home tomorrow, so I should be able to start back up on > this. A few days from now we should throw this on /r/Bitcoin so we can get > some more public comment on it. They already gave me a few leads to chase. > On Jun 5, 2015 11:34 PM, "

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Meta suggestions for this block size debate

Gabe, Did you ever get an answer to this? I"ll have some time tomorrow to be able to help with some work on this and will need to do it myself anyways since I'm not sure I understand the nuances, where bitcoin XT fits into the scheme of things (or not) etc. I would have thought that there would

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Max Block Size: Simple Voting Procedure

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Stephen Morse wrote: > Pindar, > > yes and it's a good idea to separate the hard/soft fork upgrades. The >> point being here is that we're also establishing a process for the >> community to self-determine the way forward in a transparent and verifiable >> manner.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

It would be helpful to hear from the other miners, and perhaps arrange some testing and telemetry in China with 8 ... that's even a Chinese lucky number ;) p. On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:32 AM, Thy Shizzle wrote: > Ah sorry, I just thought you were saying doesn't matter which side let > 'em bur

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

Two very valid and important points. Thank you for making these observations Peter. p. On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 06:42:05PM +0800, Pindar Wong wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > > > > > Wh

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

I think it would be helpful if we could all *chill* and focus on the solid engineering necessary to make Bitcoin succeed. p. On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Chun Wang <1240...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > > Whilst it would be nice if miners in China c

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever regardless > of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if > they can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial amounts of > bandwidth requir

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Ricardo Filipe wrote: > 2015-06-01 0:40 GMT+01:00 Pindar Wong : > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Ricardo Filipe < > ricardojdfil...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> He also said that the equation for

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Ricardo Filipe wrote: > He also said that the equation for miners has many variables, as it > should. There is no disadvantage if the network speed is the same > between the miners. Hi, Is that an assumption? If there is a difference in network speed, the > min

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

Thank you very much Chun Wang for the details below. While I'm based in HK, but I'd like to propose that the miners in China work together with Gavin and others to run an experiment of sorts next month to gather more details for the community. p. On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Chun Wang <12

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Chun Wang <1240...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello. I am from F2Pool. We are currently mining the biggest blocks on >> the network. > > > Thanks for giving your opinion! > > > >> Bad miners could attack us and

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP for standard multi-signature P2SH addresses

2015 at 11:24 PM, Pindar Wong > wrote: > > Perhaps at some point consider introducing something akin to a > > 'Bitcoin-Draft' (BD) status with some autoexpiry period? > > > > I understand that the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has the > > conc

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP for standard multi-signature P2SH addresses

Hi, Perhaps at some point consider introducing something akin to a 'Bitcoin-Draft' (BD) status with some autoexpiry period? I understand that the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has the concept of 'Internet Drafts" (ID)

Re: [Bitcoin-development] New paper: Research Perspectives and Challenges for Bitcoin and Cryptocurrencies

*Spendid* work Andrew (and all the other authors). Well done. This is a timely paper that deserves significantly wider circulation and comment. FWIW, Joichi Ito, from the MIT media Lab, made reference to your work during yesterday's MIT Bitcoin Expo [@