And anyone who would have discovered it independently would have been free
to implement it. That's the issue, not that there's an optimization.
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On 5/10/2016 2:43 PM, Sergio Demian Lerne
How could this possibly be enforced?
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> There have been no decent objections to altering the block-selection
> mechanism (when two block solutions appear at nearly the same time) as
> des
>I started this thread as a sanity check on myself, because I keep seeing
smart people saying that two chains could persist for more than a few days
after a hard fork, and I still don't see how that would possibly work.
When you start with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is
insan
>A dishonest miner majority can commit fraud against you, they can mine
only empty blocks, they can do various other things that render your money
worthless.
Mining empty blocks is not fraud.
If you want to use terms like "honest miners" and "fraud", please define
them so we can at least be on th
>If you start with the premise that more than half of Bitcoin miners would
do something crazy that would either destroy Bitcoin or would be completely
unacceptable to you, personally... then maybe you should look for some
other system that you might trust more, because Bitcoin's basic security
assu
You're entire argument seems to be based on this assumption.
>I support the 95% chain (because I'm not insane)
I fail to see how always following a majority of miners no matter what
their actions somehow equates to insanity.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <
bitc
Even so, decentralization is a means to an end - not an end-goal. It is
essential for Bitcoin to be a useful alternative, of course.
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Monarch via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On 2015-08-31 20:27, Justus Ranvier wrote:
>
>> You don'
