Re: [Bitcoin-development] On Rewriting Bitcoin (was Re: [Libbitcoin] Satoshi client: is a fork past 0.10 possible?)

2015-02-15 Thread joliver
On 2015-02-15 17:13, Tamas Blummer wrote: > On Feb 15, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > >> Yes you are dicking around. > > I thought I was clear, that I am using Bitcoin Core as border router > talking to its P2P interface. > > The reimplementation of consensus code helped me to deeply und

Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4

2015-02-15 Thread Adam Gibson
On 02/15/2015 11:25 PM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > > Most money/payment systems include some method to reverse or undo > payments made in error. In these systems, the longer settlement > times you mention below are a feature, not a bug, and give more > time for a human to react to errors and sys

Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4

2015-02-15 Thread Troy Benjegerdes
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 09:27:22AM +0100, Tamas Blummer wrote: > > > On Feb 12, 2015, at 9:16 AM, Alex Mizrahi wrote: > > Why don't you use getrawmempool RPC call to synchronize mempool contents? > > > > Since RPC interface does not scale to serve a multi user service. > In absence of better

Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4

2015-02-15 Thread Troy Benjegerdes
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:27:53AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Repeating past statements, it is acknowledged that Peter's scorched > earth replace-by-fee proposal is aptly named, and would be widely > anti-social on the current network. > > At a high level, we can see that this thread is contentiou

Re: [Bitcoin-development] On Rewriting Bitcoin (was Re: [Libbitcoin] Satoshi client: is a fork past 0.10 possible?)

2015-02-15 Thread Peter Todd
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 06:13:06PM +0100, Tamas Blummer wrote: > > On Feb 15, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > > Yes you are dicking around. > > I thought I was clear, that I am using Bitcoin Core as border router talking > to its P2P interface. Ah, sorry, that wasn't clear to me. > The

Re: [Bitcoin-development] On Rewriting Bitcoin (was Re: [Libbitcoin] Satoshi client: is a fork past 0.10 possible?)

2015-02-15 Thread Tamas Blummer
On Feb 15, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > Yes you are dicking around. I thought I was clear, that I am using Bitcoin Core as border router talking to its P2P interface. The reimplementation of consensus code helped me to deeply understand the protocol, aids debugging and now comes hand

Re: [Bitcoin-development] On Rewriting Bitcoin (was Re: [Libbitcoin] Satoshi client: is a fork past 0.10 possible?)

2015-02-15 Thread Peter Todd
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:04:49AM -0800, Adam Back wrote: > Strongly with Peter on this. That its highly complex to maintain strict > consensus between bitcoin versions, does not justify consensus rewrite > experiments; it tells you that the risk is exponentially worse and people > should use and

Re: [Bitcoin-development] On Rewriting Bitcoin (was Re: [Libbitcoin] Satoshi client: is a fork past 0.10 possible?)

2015-02-15 Thread Peter Todd
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 03:23:47PM +0100, Tamas Blummer wrote: > Peter, > > You did not address me but libbitcoin. Since our story and your evaluation is > probably similar, I chime in. > > On Feb 14, 2015, at 2:13 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > > > So stop wasting your time. Help get the consensus c

[Bitcoin-development] P2P tests: peers.dat's requested

2015-02-15 Thread Ethan Heilman
Hi All, I am currently running some tests on the peering system in Bitcoind for a research paper. We hope to develop improvements which we can share with the community. A wide diversity of real peers.dat files would be very helpful. If you are willing, please email me your peers.dat. Thanks, --