May 22, 2021, 13:09 Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev
mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>>
wrote:
Suggestions to make changes to Bitcoin's consensus protocol will only ever be
entertained if Bitcoin is completely dead without such a change. Any attempt
to change consens
Suggestions to make changes to Bitcoin's consensus protocol will only ever be
entertained if Bitcoin is completely dead without such a change. Any attempt
to change consensus protocol without a clear and convincing demonstration to
the entire network of participants that Bitcoin will die withou
This study was released last week, detailing some attacks at the network layer:
https://btc-hijack.ethz.ch/files/btc_hijack.pdf. Of the countermeasures
discussed in the paper, the use of encryption to secure communications between
nodes looks like low hanging fruit.
Raystonn
Great catch, and a good proposal for a fix. Pushing the activation height out
to allow existing hardware to enter obsolescence prior to activation may help
reduce miner resistance. It may also avoid legal threats from those currently
abusing. If miners still resist, the threat of an earlier a
Low node costs are a good goal for nodes that handle transactions the node
operator can afford. Nobody is going to run a node for a network they do not
use for their own transactions. If transactions have fees that prohibit use
for most economic activity, that means node count will drop until
Russ, do you have time to get started on your list? It would add value.
On 30 Jul 2015 5:15 pm, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev wrote:
These are the types of things I have been discussing in relation to a
process:
-A list of metrics
-A Risk analysis of the baseline system. Bitcoin
at you're addressing your question to Greg
Maxwell, however a point you keep stating as fact calls for reference:
On 07/30/2015 04:28 AM, Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev wrote:
[snip]
How do you plan to address the bleeding of value from Bitcoin to
alternative lower-fee blockchains created by the
Gregory, can you please speak to the following points. I would like a
better understanding of your positions.
1) Do you believe that Bitcoin's future is as a high-value settlement
network?
2) Do you believe we need an artificial limit to transaction rate, perhaps
implemented as a maximum bl
All of the properties you describe are also properties of many of the
alternative blockchains that currently exist. In this space, Bitcoin gives
up these advantages. Much like anywhere else where liquidity moves within a
system, value will move to the network of least friction. The reality ri
> When a category of users would get priced out because of the fee market, they
> would be free to use any altcoin they want.
I believe that pretty well sums up where we’re headed if transaction rate is
artificially limited, whether that be by maximum block size limit or something
else. A fee
Eric, any plans to correct your article at
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/21377/settling-block-size-debate/?
From: Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 4:15 AM
To: Eric Lombrozo
Cc: Bitcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure
isn'ttempor
There is now a pull request to remove mention of "zero or low fees", "fast
international payments", and "instant peer-to-peer transactions" from
bitcoin.org. For those non-technical users who do not read source code,
this may come across as the breaking of the social contract on what Bitcoin
i
> If the developers fail to reflect user consensus, the network will let us know.
This is true with the caveat that there must be more than one option present for the network to show it's preference. If developers discourage anything that forks from the rules enforced by Bitcoin Core, they harm th
> I'm concerned that miners are prematurely bumping their soft limit to 1 MB lately.
By what measure do you call this premature?
On 17 Jul 2015 1:30 pm, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
On Friday, July 17, 2015 3:55:19 PM Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> BIP PR: https://github.com
14 matches
Mail list logo
