Ok, I understand at least some of the reason that blocks have to be kept to
a certain size. I get that blocks which are too big will be hard to
propagate by relays. Miners will have more trouble uploading the large
blocks to the network once they've found a hash. We need block size
constraints to
or 5,
both of which change the supply curve due to truncation.
Again, it's a trivial concern, but probably one that should be addressed.
On May 25, 2015 11:52 PM, Jim Phillips j...@ergophobia.org wrote:
Incidentally, even once we have the Internet of Things brought on by
21, Inc. or whoever
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
This meme about datacenter-sized nodes has to die. The Bitcoin wiki is down
right now, but I showed years ago that you could keep up with VISA on a
single well specced server with today's technology. Only people living in a
and
just increase the transaction throughput.
--
From: Jim Phillips j...@ergophobia.org
Sent: 26/05/2015 12:27 PM
To: Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net
Cc: Bitcoin Dev bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] No Bitcoin For You
On Mon
biggest enemy right now and so hopefully by the time we
exceed the capacity gained by the decrease in block time, we can then look
to bump up block size because hopefully 20mbps connections will be baseline
by then etc.
--
From: Jim Phillips j...@ergophobia.org
with 100% recycled electrons. Please think twice
before printing.*
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Jim Phillips j...@ergophobia.org wrote:
I don't see how the fact that my 2Mbps connection causes me to not be a
very good relay has any bearing on whether or not the network as a whole
would
but the most densely populated LANs.
On Monday, 25 May 2015, at 11:06 pm, Jim Phillips wrote:
Is there any work being done on using some kind of zero-conf service
discovery protocol so that lightweight clients can find a full node on
the
same LAN to peer with rather than having to tie up
Is there any work being done on using some kind of zero-conf service
discovery protocol so that lightweight clients can find a full node on the
same LAN to peer with rather than having to tie up WAN bandwidth?
I envision a future where lightweight devices within a home use SPV over
WiFi to
, at 12:09 pm, Jim Phillips wrote:
Forgive me if this idea has been suggested before, but I made this
suggestion on reddit and I got some feedback recommending I also bring it
to this list -- so here goes.
I wonder if there isn't perhaps a simpler way of dealing with UTXO
growth.
What
.
On 9 May 2015 12:52 pm, Jim Phillips j...@ergophobia.org wrote:
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Raystonn rayst...@hotmail.com wrote:
How about this as a happy medium default policy: Rather than select UTXOs
based solely on age and limiting the size of the transaction, we select as
many UTXOs
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 12:09:32PM -0500, Jim Phillips wrote:
The vast majority of users are running one of a handful of different
wallet
apps: Core, Electrum; Armory; Mycelium; Breadwallet; Coinbase; Circle
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Andreas Schildbach andr...@schildbach.de
wrote:
Actually your assumption is wrong. Bitcoin Wallet (and I think most, if
not all, other bitcoinj based wallets) picks UTXO by age, in order to
maximize priority. So it keeps the number of UTXOs low, though not as
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com
wrote:
It's a very complex trade-off, which is hard to optimize for all use
cases. Using more UTXOs requires larger transactions, and thus more fees in
general.
Unless the miner determines that the reduction in UTXO storage
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Patrick Mccorry (PGR)
patrick.mcco...@newcastle.ac.uk wrote:
Not necessarily. If you want to ensure privacy, you could limit the
selection of UTXOs to a single address, and even go so far as to send
change back to that same address. This wouldn't be as
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Raystonn rayst...@hotmail.com wrote:
Lack of privacy is viral. We shouldn't encourage policy in most wallets
that discourages privacy. It adversely affects privacy across the entire
network.
How about this as a happy medium default policy: Rather than select
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Raystonn rayst...@hotmail.com wrote:
How about this as a happy medium default policy: Rather than select UTXOs
based solely on age and limiting the size of the transaction, we select as
many UTXOs as possible from as few addresses as possible, prioritizing
16 matches
Mail list logo
