Re: [Bitcoin-development] Linux packaging letter

2013-07-24 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:32 AM, zooko wrote: > This makes it sound like if, for example, Debian were to link bitcoind to the > system leveldb, and then upgrade the system leveldb to fix a bug that affects > bitcoind, that this would spell the end of Bitcoin. Maybe! A widespread consensus failur

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Linux packaging letter

2013-07-24 Thread zooko
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:28:16AM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote: > Yeah, if anyone wants to make the letter more digestable please do propose > an alternative, although by this point it's probably not worth it as people > have already signed. Okay, here's my attempt: https://docs.google.com/document/d

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Linux packaging letter

2013-07-24 Thread zooko
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 09:52:33AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > I'm working on a more digestable alternative: > https://gist.github.com/jgarzik/6065679 Hi Jeff! Thanks for working on it. Even if that letter (https://gist.github.com/jgarzik/6065679) doesn't supplant https://docs.google.com/a/leas

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Linux packaging letter

2013-07-24 Thread Jeff Garzik
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: > Yeah, if anyone wants to make the letter more digestable please do propose > an alternative, although by this point it's probably not worth it as people > have already signed. I'm working on a more digestable alternative: https://gist.github.co

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Distributing low POW headers

2013-07-24 Thread Tier Nolan
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > Please provide equations and data justifying the 'magic constants' in > this proposal. > The are a range of workable values. Ideally, there would first need to be agreement on the general principle. Distributing headers with 1/64 of the sta

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Distributing low POW headers

2013-07-24 Thread Peter Todd
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:27:03PM +0100, Tier Nolan wrote: > I was thinking about a change to the rules for distinguishing between forks > and maybe a BIP.. Please provide equations and data justifying the 'magic constants' in this proposal. Currently we do not relay blocks to peers if they conf

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Linux packaging letter

2013-07-24 Thread Mike Hearn
Yeah, if anyone wants to make the letter more digestable please do propose an alternative, although by this point it's probably not worth it as people have already signed. FWIW, Gregory is right that my original draft was much more brusque. The pain in the packaging relationship travels both ways.