On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Kristov Atlas
aut...@anonymousbitcoinbook.com wrote:
Hey Wladimir,
Thanks for building this binary. The initial problem with Qt was
resolved, and I was able to load the GUI that chooses my datadir. After
choosing the default datadir, however, it segfaulted.
On 30/04/14 00:26, Mike Hearn wrote:
These parties wouldn't generally consider themselves attackers
Of course not, attackers rarely do :)
If Bitcoin works correctly nobody should have to care if they consider
themselves attackers, defenders, or little green men from Mars. There
are
On 30/04/14 00:13, Mike Hearn wrote:
I do think we need to move beyond this idea of Bitcoin being some kind
of elegant embodiment of natural mathematical law. It just ain't so.
I haven't seen anybody arguing that it is.
Bitcoin is the elegant embodiment of /artificially contrived/
I think we're going around in circles here so this will be my last message
on the thread unless someone comes up with something new.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Gareth Williams gac...@gmail.com wrote:
If Bitcoin works correctly nobody should have to care if they consider
themselves
On 30/04/14 00:13, Mike Hearn wrote:
Every time miners and nodes ignore a block that creates formula() coins
that's a majority vote on a controversial political matter
Actually, there's one more thing I'd like to add. Apologies to the list,
but it bears repeating:
* rejecting a block at
On 30/04/14 23:55, Mike Hearn wrote:
If Bitcoin works correctly nobody should have to care if they consider
themselves attackers, defenders, or little green men from Mars.
One last time, I request that people read the white paper from 2008
before making statements like this. If the
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:00:06PM +1000, Gareth Williams wrote:
On 30/04/14 00:13, Mike Hearn wrote:
I do think we need to move beyond this idea of Bitcoin being some kind
of elegant embodiment of natural mathematical law. It just ain't so.
I haven't seen anybody arguing that it is.
Perhaps I missed it somewhere, but I don't recall it ever being a goal of
Bitcoin to act as a stable long-term store of value.
- Jameson
On 04/30/2014 01:06 PM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:00:06PM +1000, Gareth Williams wrote:
On 30/04/14 00:13, Mike Hearn wrote:
I do
Due to popular demand, I have created a BIP for cross chain atomic
transfers.
Unlike the previous version, this version only requires hash locking. The
previous version required a selector transaction based on if statements.
OP_HASH160 OP_EQUAL_VERIFY [public key] OP_CHECKSIG
On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 6:03:59 PM Tier Nolan wrote:
Due to popular demand, I have created a BIP for cross chain atomic
transfers.
https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/bip4x/bip-atom.mediawiki
Instead of TX0, TX1, etc, can you put some kind of meaningful identifier for
these
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Luke Dashjr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
Instead of TX0, TX1, etc, can you put some kind of meaningful identifier
for
these transactions?
Sorry, that is the names come from the original thread, where I was
outlining the idea. I updated the names.
TX1 and TX2
I updated again.
The new version only requires non-standard transactions on one of the two
networks.
Next step is a simple TCP / RPC server that will implement the protocol to
trade between testnet and mainnet. Timeouts of much less than 24 hours
should be possible now.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014
12 matches
Mail list logo
