First off, I am glad that the idea of dynamic block size adjustment is
gaining some attention, in particular the model that I proposed.
I wanted to take some time and explain some of the philosophy of how,
and why, I proposed this this particular model.
When Bitcoin was first made, there was a 32
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
While being in the Bitcoin community for a long time, I haven't been
so directly involved in the development. However I wish to suggest a
different pre-hard-fork soft-fork approach:
Set a 'block size cap' in the similar same way as we set difficul
We should aim to use perfect forward secrecy between all nodes by default.
This forces the attacker to do a MITM attack that is far more expensive on
the large scale.
I don't see why this is seen as so controversial. It is relatively cheap
to implement on our side, and has a dramatic increase o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
One of the possible words that haven't been proposed is 'personal' where
bitcoin addressed are commonly incorrectly called public address.
Maybe 'personal account' or even 'personal address' would imply that the
balance on such an account shouldn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
I think that the course of action is quite simple:
1. Upgrade all the clients to implement the lock limits. (in code,
not at the DB exception layer). A bit of research is needed to work
out exactly what these limits are so we can maximise the num
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
I'm not a vendor, however I have a code-signing key for windows; I could
sign the windows installer and binary.
On 30/07/2012 3:15 AM, Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Sunday, July 29, 2012 10:17:51 AM Mike Hearn wrote:
>> I guess Gavin would be the final signer
On 1/02/2012 00:12, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> RE: BIP 21 versus BIP 20: I like BIP 21; simpler is better.
>
> RE: signing and dating URIs: good ideas. I think we should agree
> that there is consensus around BIP 21 and then after there is some
> experience with signing/dating URIs you should writ
I think that bitcoin.org should remain apolitical. However maybe it
would be good if the blackout to take effect on bitcointalk.org if
theymos and Sirius believes it is appropriate.
Bitcoin.org should provide bitcoin.
On 17/01/2012 11:59 AM, slush wrote:
> I agree Bitcoin should avoid ma
even more sense since namecoin started merged mining.
On 13 December 2011 08:03, Cameron Garnham wrote:
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> De: Amir Taaki
> Enviado: 13/12/2011 0:43
> Para: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> Asunto: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: [BIP 1
9 matches
Mail list logo
