On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 05:02:39PM -0800, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> It's the year 2043— the Y2038 problem is behind us and everyone is
> beginning to forget how terrible it turned out to be— By some amazing
> chance Bitcoin still exists and is widely used. Off-chain system like
> fidelity bonded b
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 09:44:11PM -0500, Stephen Pair wrote:
> One of the beauties of bitcoin is that the miners have a very strong
> incentive to distribute as widely and as quickly as possible the blocks
> they find...they also have a very strong incentive to hear about the blocks
> that others
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Stephen Pair wrote:
> >(by which I mean the fee or cost associated with the bandwidth and
> validation that a transaction requires) with some amount of profit. This
> means that the relay node will not f
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Stephen Pair wrote:
> One of the beauties of bitcoin is that the miners have a very strong
> incentive to distribute as widely and as quickly as possible the blocks they
> find...they also have a very strong incentive to hear about the blocks that
> others find.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
>
I understand your arguments, but don't agree with many of your conclusions.
The requirement for everyone to hear the history doesn't get talked
> about much
One of the beauties of bitcoin is that the miners have a very strong
incent
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I hope that should it become necessary to do so that correct path will
> be obvious to everyone, otherwise there is a grave risk of undermining
> the justification for the confidence in the immutability of any of the
> rules of the system.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
>> Since, in the long run,
>> Bitcoin can't meet its security and decenteralization promises without
>> blockspace scarcity to drive non-trivial fees and without scaling
>> limits t
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Stephen Pair wrote:
> If you've already validated the majority of transactions in a block, isn't
> validating the block not all that compute intensive? Thus, it's really not
> blocks that should be used to impose any sort of scarcity, but rather it's
> the cost
Well, if it's even possible to trade across "chains" with Ripple (and
I don't know of any reason shouldn't be), you will have to wait to the
release of the full node (validator) code, for now only a javascript
web client is open sourced. But it seems they at least have plans for
contracts judging f
Jorge, thanks for bitcoinx tip, I didn't know about it and it's certainly
related. I'll have a closer look
Regarding Ripple, I tried it but as far as I can tell, it doesn't have any
contract enforcement (by technical means) built in.
On 11 February 2013 05:03, Jorge Timón wrote:
> Hi, you may b
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Gregory Maxwell
> wrote:
>> Since, in the long run,
>> Bitcoin can't meet its security and decenteralization promises without
>> blockspace scarcity to drive non-trivial fees and without scaling
>> limits
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Since, in the long run,
> Bitcoin can't meet its security and decenteralization promises without
> blockspace scarcity to drive non-trivial fees and without scaling
> limits to keep it decenteralized— it's not a change that could be made
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Raph Frank wrote:
>> Bitcoin is not a democracy— it quite intentionally uses the consensus
>> mechanism _only_ the one thing that nodes can not autonomously and
>> interdependently validate (the ordering of transactions).
> So, how is max block size to be decided t
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> You misunderstand what BIP_0034 is doing— it's not gauging consensus,
> it's making sure that the change is safe to enforce. This is a subtle
> but important difference.
Sounds reasonable.
The change in BIP-34 doesn't cause old client to
> So what exactly was the OP_RETURN bug anyway? I know it has something to
> do with not executing the scriptSig and scriptPubKey separately
> (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=58579.msg691432#msg691432) but
> commit 7f7f07 that you reference isn't in the tree, nor is 0.3.5 tagged.
>
It was
15 matches
Mail list logo
