On Monday, January 25, 2016 04:05:59 PM Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote:
> I don't have time to work on the release notes right now, but if someone
> else wants to contribute that'd be awesome.
I cooked my first pull request to resolve this:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7416
Thanks for
On Thursday, January 21, 2016 03:14:47 PM Rusty Russell wrote:
> +1s here means simpling say "+1" or "me too" that carries no additional
> information. ie. if you like an idea, that's great, but it's not worth
> interruping the entire list for.
>
> If you say "I prefer proposal X over Y because
On Thursday, January 21, 2016 11:20:46 AM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> So, what should moderation look like from now on?
The original mail which announced moderation contains this rule:
> - Generally discouraged: [...], +1s, [...]
I assume "+1s" means statements such as "I agree with
Pieter Wuille mentions "subsidy fraud" in his recent talk:
https://youtu.be/fst1IK_mrng?t=57m2s
I was unable to google what this is, and the Bitcoin Wiki also does not seem
to explain it.
If this is a well-known problem, perhaps it would be a good idea to explain it
somewhere?
signature.asc
On Friday, November 13, 2015 09:53:57 PM Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> The first text is explaining nlocktime without BIP65 in order to
> explain the reason for having BIP65.
Thanks. I would recommend changing the BIP65 to clarify what you just said,
this clearly is the missing piece of information
On Friday, November 13, 2015 06:58:07 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:48 PM, xor via bitcoin-dev <
>
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > This clearly says that funds can be frozen.
> > Can the BIP65-thing be
On Thursday, October 22, 2015 11:59:11 AM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> - All rejected posts will be forwarded to a list for public viewing:
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev-moderation/
They are not readable, they all say:
> An embedded message was scrubbed...
Hello,
For sake of peace, I wanted to give a chance to XT's block size growth efforts
by actually *reading* BIP101 [1] which seems to be their specification.
Thus, please read this mail as something which aims to establish peaceful
cooperation between the non-XT and XT community; not as
Hey folks,
so you've been stressed with arguing about what to do with the block size for
months now :(
Why not realize that the unfruitful permanent need for administrators to tweak
a magical, god-given (= Satoshi-given) constant is a *strong* indicator for
something which should be delegated
