-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter, my response below
On 06/16/2015 10:46 AM, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 09:26:07AM -0700, odinn wrote:
>> This is very well done.
>>
>> Have you seen this discussion that I started regarding BIP 63?
>>
>> https://bitcointalk.org/i
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 09:55:13PM +0800, Pindar Wong wrote:
> > Agreed. Pieter Wuille's recent work is a great example of the kind of
> > science-driven investigations that need to be done - and haven't been
> > done very much - to get us some hard data to make decisions on.
> >
>
> Thank you ver
> - How do you propose to deal with the extra risks that come from
> non-consensus hard-forks? Hard-forks themselves are quite risky, but
> non-consensus ones are extremely dangerous for consensus.
This is a non-issue.
If the hard-fork is not a consensus, then those of us that don't consent
igno
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:00:19PM -0700, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> Thanks Alex, the work you've pointed out is helpful. Limiting mempool size
> should at least prevent nodes from crashing. When I looked a few days ago I
> only found a few old PRs that seemed to have fallen by the wayside, so this
> n
Please no GoogleGroups. Stick with mailman or some other open
source thing you can move around from place to place as needed.
Also, online third party archives die, their web interfaces suck
ass, they're bloated, don't export, aren't offline capable or
authoritative, etc.
You need to make the raw
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> Given that we have had more than two weeks of public discussion, code is
> available and reviewed, and several community identified issues resolved, I
> would like to formally request a BIP number be assigned for this work. Will
> the BIP
Given that we have had more than two weeks of public discussion, code is
available and reviewed, and several community identified issues resolved, I
would like to formally request a BIP number be assigned for this work. Will
the BIP editor be so kind as to do so to allow the BIP consensus process t
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Warren Togami Jr.
wrote:
>
> *List Name?* Would people prefer "bitcoin-development" for he new list
> name instead of a shorter name like "bitcoin-dev"? I personally like the
> shorter name, but either is fine.
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2015-06-16 23:32, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Is there any discussion thats been had relating to the BIP-drafts at:
>
> https://github.com/Open-Transactions/rfc/tree/master/bips
>
> Fellow Traveler has apparently been waiting 9 months for prog
Is there any discussion thats been had relating to the BIP-drafts at:
https://github.com/Open-Transactions/rfc/tree/master/bips
Fellow Traveler has apparently been waiting 9 months for progress on
these proposals and I'm trying to find out where the breakdown
happened. While do not doubt that I a
Jorge Timón writes:
> On Jun 15, 2015 11:43 PM, "Rusty Russell" wrote:
>
>> Though Peter Todd's more general best-effort language might make more
>> sense. It's not like you can hide an OP_RETURN transaction to make it
>> look like something else, so that transaction not going to be
>> distingui
I don't see why existing software could create a 40-byte OP_RETURN but not
larger? The limitation comes from a relay policy in full nodes, not a
limitation is wallet software... and PoPs are not relayed on the network.
Regarding sharing, I think you're talking about a different use case. Say
you w
You can't avoid sharing the token, and you can't avoid sharing the private
keys used for signing either. If they are single use, you don't lose
anything by sharing them.
Also you are not creating a real transaction. Why does the OP_RETURN
limitation matter?
On Jun 16, 2015 9:22 PM, "Kalle Rosenbau
Thank you for your comments Pieter! Please find my answers below.
2015-06-16 16:31 GMT+02:00 Pieter Wuille :
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Kalle Rosenbaum wrote:
>>
>> 2015-06-15 12:00 GMT+02:00 Pieter Wuille :
>> I'm not sure if we will be able to support PoP with CoinJoin. Maybe
>> someone
Actually, I have to think about this merge-mining thing a bit more. I'm
starting to think it's better to do without merge-mining at all. As I
explained in the forum post, the parent will put the hashes of its children
headers as transactions inside its blocks. Thus parents will have an
incentive to
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> Merge-mined sidechains are not a scaling solution any more than SPV is a
> scaling solution because they don't solve the scaling problem for
> miners.
>
> Some kind of treechain like sidechain / subchains where what part of the
> tree miners ca
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 01:15:14PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Pieter Wuille
> wrote:
>
> > It's simple: either you care about validation, and you must validate
> > everything, or you don't, and you don't validate anything. Sidechains do
> > not offer you a useful
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 09:26:07AM -0700, odinn wrote:
> This is very well done.
>
> Have you seen this discussion that I started regarding BIP 63?
>
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1083961.0
>
> I have no response from Peter Todd back on it other than "my time is
> better spent focusi
Alternate funding strategy: With 1billion users, mr roger ver is now among
the worlds first $trillionaires, and he generously donates to the
non-profit organization responsible for both the wildly popular wallet, and
his new found largess.
On Tuesday, June 16, 2015, justusranv...@riseup.net <
just
With their money, if they were to take advantage of optional additional
financial services, like, as one example, comsumer protection insurance.
Aaron
On Tuesday, June 16, 2015, wrote:
> On 2015-06-16 07:55, Aaron Voisine wrote:
>
>> Suppose a billion mobile phones wanted to run SPV wallets tom
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This is very well done.
Have you seen this discussion that I started regarding BIP 63?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1083961.0
I have no response from Peter Todd back on it other than "my time is
better spent focusing on more fundemental i
Thank you for the clarification Tom!
/Kalle
2015-06-16 16:05 GMT+02:00 Tom Harding :
> On 6/16/2015 5:12 AM, Kalle Rosenbaum wrote:
>> 2015-06-16 7:26 GMT+02:00 Tom Harding :
>>> Kalle goes to some trouble to describe how merchants need to ensure that
>>> they only accept a PoP provided as a resp
On 2015-06-16 12:55 AM, Aaron Voisine wrote:
>> Suppose a billion mobile phones wanted to run SPV wallets tomorrow. Who
>> would provide the nodes they would need connect to?
>
> The SPV wallet author would if they wanted their wallet to function.
I would also guess that the cost to provide serv
Let me ask a simpler question. How do you prove the state of the UTXO
database corresponding to your wallet? With my subchain method, all the
addresses in a wallet can be constrained to a path of subchains, so the
proof is O(log n). Yes, I know some people will say that it is not really a
proof bec
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Kalle Rosenbaum wrote:
> 2015-06-15 12:00 GMT+02:00 Pieter Wuille :
> I'm not sure if we will be able to support PoP with CoinJoin. Maybe
> someone with more insight into CoinJoin have some input?
>
Not really. The problem is that you assume a transaction corresp
On 6/16/2015 5:12 AM, Kalle Rosenbaum wrote:
> 2015-06-16 7:26 GMT+02:00 Tom Harding :
>> Kalle goes to some trouble to describe how merchants need to ensure that
>> they only accept a PoP provided as a response to their challenge.
>>
> Do you mean that it will be hard to explain to merchants that
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 08:33:31PM +0800, Pindar Wong wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Adam Back wrote:
> > Dear Adam, All:
> >
> > At the community's convenience, it would be an honour to arrange an
> initial
> > open summit to mee
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 08:33:31PM +0800, Pindar Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Adam Back wrote:
> Dear Adam, All:
>
> At the community's convenience, it would be an honour to arrange an initial
> open summit to meet with representatives of the Chinese miners in Hong Kong
> (UTC+8
On 2015-06-16 07:55, Aaron Voisine wrote:
>> Suppose a billion mobile phones wanted to run SPV wallets tomorrow.
>> Who
>> would provide the nodes they would need connect to?
>
> The SPV wallet author would if they wanted their wallet to function.
How will the SPV wallet users pay for this servi
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Adam Back wrote:
> Hi Mike
>
> Well thank you for replying openly on this topic, its helpful.
>
> I apologise in advance if this gets quite to the point and at times
> blunt, but transparency is important, and we owe it to the users who
> see Bitcoin as the start
Another thing worth mentioning is that an SPV wallet cannot validate a
PoP without fetching the input transactions of the PoP from an
external (not bitcoin network) source, for example chain.com or some
other trusted full node's API.
The validation of the PoP depends on the external source(s) bein
2015-06-16 7:26 GMT+02:00 Tom Harding :
>
> Kalle goes to some trouble to describe how merchants need to ensure that
> they only accept a PoP provided as a response to their challenge.
>
Do you mean that it will be hard to explain to merchants that they
must check the nonce in the PoP so that it m
>
> "How do you plan to deal with security & incident response for the
> duration you describe where you will have control while you are deploying
> the unilateral hard-fork and being in sole maintainership control?"
>
How do we plan to deal with security & incident response - exactly the same
way
Hi Bryan,
Specifically, when Adam mentioned your conversations with non-technical
> people, he did not mean "Mike has talked with people who have possibly not
> made pull requests to Bitcoin Core, so therefore Mike is a non-programmer".
>
Yes, my comment was prickly and grumpy. No surprises, I di
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 6:18 AM, Venzen wrote:
> Mike Hearn, you should cease your activity of a unilateral hard-fork
> immediately. You are doing untold damage by breaking FOSS governance
> protocol requiring methodical collaborative work and due process of
> change implementation by consensus.
"And it allows the minority to hold the majority hostage"
The Bitcoin protocol has no definitions about developer consensus .
The reference to FOSS is quite arbitrary. The alternative of lobbying
companies is equally indeterminate and arbitrary. One of the core
problem is that you can't poll users
> Suppose a billion mobile phones wanted to run SPV wallets tomorrow. Who
> would provide the nodes they would need connect to?
The SPV wallet author would if they wanted their wallet to function.
Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet.com
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:28 PM, wrote:
> On 2
On Jun 15, 2015 11:43 PM, "Rusty Russell" wrote:
> Though Peter Todd's more general best-effort language might make more
> sense. It's not like you can hide an OP_RETURN transaction to make it
> look like something else, so that transaction not going to be
> distinguished by non-canonical orderi
38 matches
Mail list logo
