On Sun, Dec 12, 2021, 7:42 AM Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Indeed, I reiterate that using the Tor network for Bitcoin or whatever
> protocol not related to the Tor Browser (ie browsing and HS) does not make
> sense, for plenty of reasons
>
Hi,
I'm not a bitcoin developer.
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021, 5:05 AM Héctor José Cárdenas Pacheco via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I’ve been thinking about how OP_RETURN is being used to create and trade
> NFTs on Bitcoin (think RarePepes, SoG and other
Something that could work really well here could be having a norm of using
the checksum for bright colors, weights, sizes, capitalizations, and/or
spacing of the characters of the address, making different addresses more
clearly visually distinct.
Ethereum uses mixed case to do this a little bit:
Why would removing the dust limit impact decentralisation of mining if
miners can reconfigure the dust limit for their mined blocks?
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
If bitcoin were to ever consider changing their PoW algorithm a
little, it seems that would immediately make purchased ASIC mining
equipment partially or wholly unusable to compromise the chain (and
temporarily reduce energy usage without necessarily reducing
security). One possible plan to deter
>> The turn-around time for that takes a population of both users and
>> miners to cause. Increasing popularity of bitcoin has a far bigger
>> impact here, and it is already raising fees and energy use at an
>> established rate.
>>
>> If it becomes an issue, as bandwidth increases block size could
On 5/23/21, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Good morning James,
>
>> Background
>> ===
>> Reducing the block reward reduces the incentive to mine. It reduces the
>> maximum energy price at which mining is profitable, reducing the energy
>> use.
>>
>
> If people want to retain previous levels of
On 5/16/21, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Efficiency-Paradox
> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Memory-Fallacy
The chain security actually reduces by 10% in this proposal. So the
efficiency paradox is not
> 1. Has anyone considered that it might be technically not possible to
> completely 'power down' mining rigs during this 'cool-down' period of time?
> While modern CPUs have power-saving modes, I am not sure about ASICs used for
> mining.
Sounds like a point to consider, note the economic
[sorry if I haven't replied to the other thread on this, I get swamped
by email and don't catch them all]
This solution is workable but it seems somewhat difficult to me at this time.
The clock might be implementable on a peer network level by requiring
inclusion of a transaction that was
On Sun, May 9, 2021, 6:21 AM R E Broadley <
rebroad+linuxfoundation@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 8 May 2021 at 15:36, Karl via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > Bitcoin would get better mainstream public reputation if the block
> reward were reduced to reduce mining. This wou
Bitcoin would get better mainstream public reputation if the block reward
were reduced to reduce mining. This would quickly and easily reduce energy
expenditure.
A system would be needed to do that with consensus, to make it political.
For example, making a norm of extending the block reward
A good solution here is to make it clear to visitors that facilitation,
mediation, and organisation help is badly needed in the core development
team.
People with such expertise can even be hired directly.
A good facilitator opens communication paths between all parties, leaving
everyone
Coinswap has been a struggling goal for many years now. Consider that
bitshares' dexbot just recently lost their funding.
Please make your projects usable before you announce you are working on
them, to keep your work safe from distraction or harm.
On Sun, Sep 13, 2020, 7:11 PM Tom Trevethan
Hi ZmnSCPxj,
We have been addressing many concepts. Let's try to slowly trim it down
for simplicity.
> Reddit claims two entities controlled 62% of the hashrate recently:
> https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gmhuon/in_the_last_24_hours_bitcoins_nakamoto/
> . Compromising the
asy to find an sha256 preimage on a personal
device, somehow.
Let's improve the security of the blockchain.
On Sun, May 24, 2020, 7:51 PM Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
wrote:
> On May 24, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Karl via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>
Hi ZmnSCPxj,
Thanks for your reply. I'm on mobile so please excuse me for top-posting.
I'd like to sort these various points out. Maybe we won't finish the whole
discussion, but maybe at least we can update wiki articles like
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hashcash#Cryptanalytic_Risks with more
Good afternoon ZmnSCPxj,
Thanks for holding your end of this discussion with me.
Sorry I am so verbose; I am still learning to communicate efficiently.
> You mention ASICs becoming commoditized. I'd remind you that eventually
> there will be a public mathematical breaking of the algorithm, at
Hi,
I'd like to revisit the discussion of the digest algorithm used in hashcash.
I believe migrating to new hashing algorithms as a policy would
significantly increase decentralization and hence security.
I believe the impact on existing miners could be made pleasant by gradually
moving the
19 matches
Mail list logo
