Mike was wrong about a number of things, and in the end decided that Bitcoin
was pointless, as people could not defend it against the state. He used this as
the basis for his defense of large blocks and centralized mining. When that
didn’t work out he quit, to work on centralized systems.
Peopl
I must remind everyone of Mike Hearn's proposal not many years ago, which
ought to be on everyone's mind right now. "Every soft fork should be a hard
fork, and that soft forks are inherently dangerous because old nodes are
tricked to not know what the new nodes are doing" (paraphrased). Whether
tap
Good Afternoon,
I will reply this to the list. Knit picking is not constructive. The basic
principle of Bitcoin it all transactions are published to the public ledger,
the blockchain. What is valuable is the system that consensus enshrines as we
have it, not what it may become tomorrow. If ther
Good Afternoon,
Gold is not all off the record if you suppose, it is all the King's property if
His Excellency likes. If you suppose for underground gold perhaps fork Bitcoin
and make Encryptitcoin and notice governments are hostile to hidden money.
Bitcoin also has value because it is transpar
“all transactions should be open to the scrutiny of an honest government”
I agree with this. However, scrutiny does not imply dragnet surveillance.
Bitcoin returns us, or at least aspires to return, to the days of a gold
standard.[0] You will be familiar with this, from your time in Her Majesty’
Good Afternoon,
So this I have been advised as you say.
My concern was that the more complex scripts allow obfuscation of the Pay To
address thereby removing the probity that Bitcoin can only be honest since the
public ledger can be subject to limitless scrutiny. I did see another party
mentio
taproot does not enable anything that cannot already be done today.
it only enables larger and more complex scripts to be done more
efficiently - using less ledger space.
so any objections you can have should be leveled at bitcoin, not at taproot.
On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 6:39 AM LORD HIS EXCELLEN
As one of the folks that prefers LOT=true I can certainly attest to the
fact that at least some of us would be willing to do a flag day activation
instead. As far as I'm concerned, flag day does not give a very small
percentage of the user base (5-10% of minerz) the ability to veto a change
that ha
And of course:
1) MASF=true + LOT=eventually true
Using a declining activation threshold over time gives miners control
only over the timing of activation, not the eventuality. This is
essentially the same as LOT=true, however, it has a greater chance of
activation without requiring intervening
With reference to considerations
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-March/018555.html
and motivation to find consensus on incrementally improving Bitcoin
soft-fork activation mechanisms. (TL;DR Consensus is important for the
activation mechanism as there are more soft-for
Hi Thomas,
> Nevertheless, there is ONE feature of BIP70 that I find useful: the fact
that payment requests were signed.
In addition to signing the actual payment request, a nice addition to a new
payment protocol is an assurance that the receiving address can in fact
spend later on. Many users s
+1 for calm and patience as we navigate the activation mechanism.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 3:24 AM Melvin Carvalho via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 10:07, John Rand via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Cons
Appologies as I've rearranged your comments in my reply.
On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 5:14 PM Matt Corallo
wrote:
>
> On 3/3/21 14:08, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> After a normal and successful Core update with LOT=false, we will have
> more data showing broad community support for the
Hi Ariel
> I think Bitcoin is fine staying as is until that minority forks off with
their own alt-node A quick UASF fork allows for an early LOT=false
activation.
I think you misunderstand BIP 8 (LOT=true). Although no timetable has been
finalized as of yet (and hence we are in the realm of
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 10:07, John Rand via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Consensus is important for both taproot and separately for the activation
> mechanism. There are more soft-forks that Bitcoin will need, so it is
> important to achieve positive progress on th
Consensus is important for both taproot and separately for the activation
mechanism. There are more soft-forks that Bitcoin will need, so it is
important to achieve positive progress on the activation topic also, not
get impatient and rush something ill-considered. Not all future soft-forks
maybe
16 matches
Mail list logo
