Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardfork bit BIP

> On Feb 7, 2016, at 2:27 PM, wrote: > > Normal version number only suggests softforks, which is usually not a concern > for SPV clients. Soft forks affect the security of low-confirmation (zero or one) transactions sent to SPV wallets even more than hard

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Weak block thoughts...

> On Sep 23, 2015, at 12:28 PM, Peter R wrote: > > Hi Gavin, > > One thing that's not clear to me is whether it is even necessary--from the > perspective of the block size limit--to consider block propagation. I didn't mention the block size limit; weak blocks are a good

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus based block size retargeting algorithm (draft)

With this proposal, how much would it cost a miner to include an 'extra' 500-byte transaction if the average block size is 900K and it costs the miner 20BTC in electricity/capital/etc to mine a block? If my understanding of the proposal is correct, it is: 500/90 * 20 = 0.1 BTC ... Or

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn't temporary

On Jul 30, 2015, at 4:21 AM, Eric Lombrozo wrote: and a number of the people most intimately familiar with the inner workings of the system (some of whom are in this thread) think that given what we now today about the Bitcoin network, increasing block size externalizes costs in