The problem with modifying Bitcoin to work around community norms is that
it's a two-way street. Other people can do it too.
Let me propose a counter-fork, or a "Double UASF." This is also a BIP9
fork, and it uses, say, bit 2. starttime is 1489449600, and the end time is
1506812400. It enforces ev
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 3:50:27 PM shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> // mandatory segwit activation between Oct 1st 2017 and Nov 15th 2017
> inclusive if (pindex->GetMedianTimePast() >= 1538352000 &&
> pindex->GetMedianTimePast() <= 1510704000 &&
> !IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.G
Before setting a flag day, I think we should get written cooperation agreements
from the largest economic players in Bitcoin. This would include:
There isn't a flag day to set. If the major economic organs like exchanges run
the BIP, non-signalling miners simply wont get paid (starting October 1
Shouldn't there be a FAQ about this? All the blocksize increase proposals
going back to the Bitcoin Classic have the same problems and having
repeated proposals which move the details around a bit doesn't add anything
to the discussion.
___
bitcoin-dev ma
I recently posted about so called "user activated soft forks" and received a
lot of feedback. Much of this was how such methodologies could be applied to
segwit which appears to have fallen under the miner veto category I explained
in my original proposal, where there is apparently a lot of supp
Thank you all for the insightful feedback, on list, in private and on various
social media platforms. I have extended the generalized proposal which extends
BIP9. This basically introduces an extra workflow state if activationtime >
starttime and < timeout - 1 month. It allows extra business log
Are you aware of Washington Sanchez's BIP 107? It is a proposal
similar to yours:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0107.mediawiki
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 4:44 PM, David Vorick via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> What, in your appraisal, is the purpose of the block size limit? I think we
> wi
What, in your appraisal, is the purpose of the block size limit? I think we
will be more able to have a productive discussion around this proposal if
we clear that up first.
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.
BLOCKCHAIN CONGESTION – A SOLUTION AND PRE-EMPTIVE MEASURES FOR THE FUTURE
This document is an idea for helping the bitcoin block chain get
uncongested, provide enough space for transactions to get included in
blocks easily, and give the bitcoin network the power to defend itself
against any str
