Pieter,
Am 13.06.2015 um 16:39 schrieb Pieter Wuille:
> We can reasonably assume that different people's wallet will tend to be
> distributed uniformly over several sidechains to hold their transactions (if
> they're not, there is no scaling benefit anyway...). That means that for an
> average
>
> Yes, it does bother (some) people to see the consensus based system
> because of the difficulties that can be associated with implementing
> it. But that's the way it is. If you don't like consensus based
> systems (or decentralized, distributed systems) this is probably the
> wrong space for
The choice is very real and on-point. What should the block size limit
be? Why?
There is a large consensus that it needs increasing. To what? By what
factor?
The size limit literally defines the fee market, the whole damn thing. If
software high priests choose a size limit of 300k, space is
I definitely think we need some voting system for metaconsensus…but if we’re
going to seriously consider this we should look at the problem much more
generally. Using false choices doesn’t really help, though ;)
- Eric Lombrozo
> On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> On Sun, J
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo wrote:
> 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences…and particularly for miners. It
> lends itself to much greater corruptibility.
>
>
What is the alternative? Have a Chief Scientist or Technical Advisory
Board choose what is a proper fee, what is a
Chun,
With all due respect, there are a couple major differences between BIP34 and
BIP66 on the one hand and BIP100 on the other.
1) BIP34 and BIP66 are soft forks. Miners choosing to switch to them will not
seriously impact validation rules for non-mining users that do not make the
switch. Wi
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Chun Wang <1240...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To tell you the truth. It is only because most miners are not located
> in the West. If Slush, Eligius and BTC Guild still on top 3, the core
> developers, including brain-dead Mike Hearn, would be very happy to do
> BIP100 j
Miner voting, while imperfect, is the least-worst of various solutions
which inject market input into the system. It is is known quantity, field
tested, and must be sustained, in public, over a time span of months. As
this thread shows, stakeholder and direct user voting is nigh impossible to
get
To tell you the truth. It is only because most miners are not located
in the West. If Slush, Eligius and BTC Guild still on top 3, the core
developers, including brain-dead Mike Hearn, would be very happy to do
BIP100 just like they did BIP34 and BIP66. Shame on you!
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 6:20 A
What Stephen said is very much along the same lines of my earlier critique.
This voting mechanism would be all but unusable to most endusers without some
pretty elaborate tools…and unless users are willing to pay substantially higher
fees than they’re currently paying, their votes will not reall
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
A decentralized, distributed application should offer its users
decentralized, distributed method of weighing in on the direction of
how it evolves as well as having an open development model. The
reference to Facebook and Myspace is completely inappl
While this idea is theoretically interesting because it involves many
stakeholders, rather than just miners, I think in practice this would not work
very well. Users don't want to worry about this kind of technicality, they just
want to be able to make a transaction and have it be processed.
I
Adding back the list. Did not intend to remove it. Apologies.
On 13 Jun 2015 4:52 pm, Raystonn wrote:Based on my observations, what the majority of Bitcoin users want is a system that can carry more transactions per second than any existing payment system while retaining most of the security of
That’s exactly the problem with Bitcoin - it was supposed to be the case that
users ARE the miners and node operators…but…alas…
> On Jun 13, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Danny Thorpe wrote:
>
> Please forgive my ignorance, but why should Bitcoin users have a say in block
> size limits? It's the miners a
Please forgive my ignorance, but why should Bitcoin users have a say in
block size limits? It's the miners and Bitcoin node operators that bear
the burden of managing large blocks, no?
Users voting on network parameters sounds like neighbors voting on how deep
my swimming pool should be.
Thanks,
First of all, I added more info to bitcointalk.org:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1083345.0
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Pieter Wuille
wrote:
>
> In your proposal, transactions go to a chain based the addresses involved.
> We can reasonably assume that different people's wallet wil
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> > A Header-PoW-verifying client could still be given all transactions in
> a recent block, from which it can see the in-band fees directly.
>
> You don't know the fees paid by any given transaction unless you also have
> all it's inputs. Tr
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Andrew wrote:
> Hi
>
> I briefly mentioned something about this on the bitcoin-dev IRC room. In
> general, it seems experts (like sipa i.e. Pieter) are against using
> sidechains as a way of scaling. As I only have a high level understanding
> of the Bitcoin proto
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Tier Nolan wrote:
> Once the 75% threshold is reached, miners who haven't updated are at risk
> of mining on invalid blocks.
>
Note that we've been above the 75% threshold since june 7th (before Peter's
main was sent).
--
Pieter
---
I've been tossing around an idea in my head that involves time-locked
encryption [0] and I wondered what the devs here think about it. In a
nutshell: the timechain is a serial chain of time-lock encrypted GPG keys
at N minute intervals (meaning that it requires N minutes to decrypt a
single link /
20 matches
Mail list logo
