Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin.org missing bitcoin core version 22.0
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 07:37:48PM +, Pieter Wuille wrote: > On Wednesday, October 20th, 2021 at 3:20 PM, Owen Gunden via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > I also notice that, as of 22.0, Wladimir is no longer signing the > > releases, and I have no trust in my gpg network of the people who seem > > to have replaced him. > > This is not correct. Here are Wladimir's attestations on the 22.0 > release: > https://github.com/bitcoin-core/guix.sigs/tree/main/22.0/laanwj > > There is no separate special release key anymore though. Instead, the > build attestations (by anyone) can be used as your trust basis. Ah, that explains it, thanks Pieter. I was looking for a signature from the release key 01EA 5486 DE18 A882 D4C2 6845 90C8 019E 36C2 E964, which was still being supplied as recently as 0.21.1. > There is no new website. The Bitcoin Core project website has been > https://bitcoincore.org for years. Some of us are very old :). ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin.org missing bitcoin core version 22.0
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 04:47:17PM +0200, Prayank wrote: > > It seems confusing to have two sites that seemingly both represent > > bitcoin core. > > There is only one website which represents Bitcoin Core full node > implementation. You can download Bitcoin Core from > https://bitcoincore.org I also notice that, as of 22.0, Wladimir is no longer signing the releases, and I have no trust in my gpg network of the people who seem to have replaced him. Given the level of security at stake here, my eyebrows are raised at this combination of items changing (new website + new gpg signers at the same time). ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
[bitcoin-dev] bitcoin.org missing bitcoin core version 22.0
When I search for "download bitcoin core" my top result is bitcoin.org, which is out of date and doesn't have 22.0. It seems confusing to have two sites that seemingly both represent bitcoin core. Maybe the download links could be removed from bitcoin.org and instead it could just link to bitcoincore.org? ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Defining a min spec
I'm also a user who runs a full node, and I also like this idea. I think Gavin has done some back-of-the-envelope calculations around this stuff, but nothing so clearly defined as what you propose. On 07/02/2015 08:33 AM, Mistr Bigs wrote: I'm an end user running a full node on an aging laptop. I think this is a great suggestion! I'd love to know what system requirements are needed for running Bitcoin Core. On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Jean-Paul Kogelman mailto:jeanpaulkogel...@me.com>> wrote: I’m a game developer. I write time critical code for a living and have to deal with memory, CPU, GPU and I/O budgets on a daily basis. These budgets are based on what we call a minimum specification (of hardware); min spec for short. In most cases the min spec is based on entry model machines that are available during launch, and will give the user an enjoyable experience when playing our games. Obviously, we can turn on a number of bells and whistles for people with faster machines, but that’s not the point of this mail. The point is, can we define a min spec for Bitcoin Core? The number one reason for this is: if you know how your changes affect your available budgets, then the risk of breaking something due to capacity problems is reduced to practically zero. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks
On 06/26/2015 02:23 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: Failure to plan now for a hard fork increase 6(?) months in the future produces that lumpy, unpredictable market behavior. The market has baked in the years-long behavior of low fees. From the market PoV, inaction does lead to precisely that, a sudden change over the span of a few months. Which market participants are you referring to? I entered the bitcoin market with open eyes, aware that it faces hard scalability challenges by design. I was also aware that because of these challenges, eventually transaction fees would have to rise. Nevertheless, I made the decision to invest because of the utility I gain from the anti-censorship, privacy, control, store of value, and security aspects of bitcoin -- many of which stem from decentralization, which others have demonstrated to be linked to the block size. On the other hand, there are undoubtedly other market participants who heard hype about "zero fee transactions to anywhere in the world", believed it would scale, and made (mal)investments as a result. As for how many market participants of each flavor, and how deep their respective pockets, who knows? My experience in markets has lead me to realize that it's never wise to assume I know what "the market" does and doesn't know. If Jeff Garzik is right about what the market has priced in, then yes, filled blocks will be rocking the boat. But who's to say that the smartest, biggest investors and traders don't already see this scaling problem, and have already priced it in? In this case, a sudden large increase in the block size is actually rocking the boat. The point is, you can't know either way, so trying to pre-empt the market in this way is erroneous. Regarding entrepreneurial investment specifically, why should we favor the entrepreneurs who require a more centralized bitcoin over those who were more considerate of the possibility of rising transaction fees when making their business models? In my mind, we should favor neither, which is why I'm basically in agreement with Pieter that this sense of "emergency" shouldn't really be a part of the debate. Not that I'm taking a stand on the specific block size issue either way. I just think this particular line of reasoning (presupposing what information the market has and has not already baked in) is unsound. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
