This idea is highly contentious as it would guarantee a viable chain of Bitcoin
with SegWit activated whether BIP148 gained sufficient support or not. I am not
necessarily advocating it - just putting it out for discussion. While the
downside is that it could permanently split the network, the
Hi Ilya,
This proposal wouldn't work because bad actors can perform PoW just as cheaply
as any other participant.
The transaction fee already acts as a mechanism to prevent spam. It is not a
problem to have a lot of low value transactions in the mempool as thresholds
can easily be set for
s been known since the
beginning.
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 9:50 AM John Hardy via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>>
wrote:
I’m very worried about the state of miner centralisation in Bitcoin.
I always felt the centralisin
ther than the best. There are two ways to go with a PoW, either make it as
advantaged on custom hardware as possible, which means sha3, or make it as
difficult to ASIC as possible, which at this point means cuckoo since there's
already hardware for equihash.
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 9:01 AM, John Har
rchased by an entity who intends to
do harm to the network.
Bitcoin only works if most miners are honest, this has been known since the
beginning.
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 9:50 AM John Hardy via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
I’m very worried about the state of miner centralisation in Bitcoin.
I always felt the centralising effects of ASIC manufacturing would resolve
themselves once the first mover advantage had been exhausted and the industry
had the opportunity to mature.
I had always assumed initial
absolute node count is pretty meaningless since only fully
validating nodes that participate in economic activity really matter.
As a side note, this should probably have started out as a bitcoin-discuss post.
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 4:04 PM, John Hardy via bitcoin-dev
<
rely on those for anything).
Also funding that ID address would might tie your economic activity (or even
identity) to a node.
On 4 March 2017 at 17:04, John Hardy via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>>
wrote:
The discuss
ostock)
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 8:27 AM, John Hardy via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>>
wrote:
Proof of Nodework (PoNW) is a way to reward individual nodes for keeping a full
copy of and verifying the blockchain.
Hope
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
