[bitcoin-dev] BIP149 timeout-- why so far in the future?

2017-06-11 Thread Martijn Meijering via bitcoin-dev
Jorge Timón wrote: "My preference would be a bip149 proposal that could be merged and released now, but some people complain that would require more testing, because *if you deploy bip149 and then sw gets activated pre nov15, then you want bip149 nodes to use the old service bit for segwit*, not

[bitcoin-dev] Reasons to add sync flags to Bitcoin

2016-07-26 Thread Martijn Meijering via bitcoin-dev
- Flags will be mined selfishly, and not published until the advantage gained from withholding is less than the mining reward. This effect may kill the decentralization features, since big miners will be the only ones that can selfish-mine flags. Indeed, collusion would be encouraged...

Re: [bitcoin-dev] An implementation of BIP102 as a softfork.

2015-12-30 Thread Martijn Meijering via bitcoin-dev
That looks very interesting. But is effectively blocking old clients from seeing transactions really safe? After all, such transactions are still confirmed on the new chain. A person might try to send a similar transaction several times, perhaps with increasing fees in an attempt to get it to

[bitcoin-dev] Fwd: Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

2015-12-19 Thread Martijn Meijering via bitcoin-dev
Appealing moderator's decision. If my post was off-topic, then so is the whole thread. As for content-heavy, I made a very specific compromise proposal that I'd like to bring to the developers attention. If this isn't the place to do that, then I don't know what is, but I'd be happy to repost to a