On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> On Monday, February 06, 2017 6:19:43 PM you wrote:
> > >My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any
> block
> > >size increase hardfork ever.
> >
> > Luke, how do you know the community opposes that? Specifically, how di
>My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any block
size
>increase hardfork ever.
Luke, how do you know the community opposes that? Specifically, how did you
come to this conclusion?
>Your version doesn't address the current block size
>issues (ie, the blocks being too larg
The semantics of a necessarily secure and private client-server protocol differ
from that of a necessarily distributed and public P2P protocol. I realize you
refer to the C/S as a distinct API, but this point is worthy of clarification
and emphasis.
The introduction of client-server sub-protoco
On 27.01.2017 20:03, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Assume as a premise (despite your apparent disagreement below) that for
Bitcoin to function, a supermajority of economic activity needs to be
verified
using full nodes operated by the recipient. Evidence suggests that at
this
current time,
Probabilistic collisions, while present, would be statistically insignificant
at 4 chars length.
Implementation by wallets would just require a loop of their existing address
generation until a match is found, trivial to implement. Wallets could provide
a dropdown which shows the most commonly
