Hi Adam, I welcomed XT for its declared focus on usability with current means. I think there is also more room for non-consenus relevant P2P protocol flavors than a single code base can accommodate. XT is also as Jeff just tweeted a relief valve.
It became important, that Bitcoin is able to evolve even if there are conflicting educated opinions. If a review process serves decision making, then I’d be glad to participate. Tamas Blummer > On Aug 16, 2015, at 19:01, Adam Back <a...@cypherspace.org> wrote: > > Hi Tamas > > Do you find BIP 101, BIP 102, BIP 103 and the flexcap proposal > deserving of equal consideration? Just curious because of your post. > > Will you be interested to participate in the BIP review process and > perhaps attend the workshop on Bitcoin scaling announced here > recently? > > Adam > > On 16 August 2015 at 17:07, Tamas Blummer via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> Being a bitcoin software developer an entrepreneur for years I learned that >> success is not a direct consequence of technology and is not inevitable. >> BitcoinXT manifesto >> (https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt#the-xt-manifesto) should resonate >> with many fellow entrepreneurs. >> I applaud Mike and Gavin for creating that choice for us. >> >> Tamas Blummer >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
