Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-08-16 📝 Original message:The only other thing I'd ...
📅 Original date posted:2013-08-16
📝 Original message:The only other thing I'd like to see there is the start of a new anti-DoS
framework. I think once the outline is in place other people will be able
to fill it in appropriately. But the current framework has to be left
behind.
If I had to choose one thing to evict to make time for that, it'd be the
whitepapers. At the moment we still have plenty of headroom in block sizes,
even post April. It can probably be safely delayed for a while.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
> Cool. Maybe it's time for another development update on the foundation
> blog?
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 3:00 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Mike asked what non-0.9 code I'm working on; the three things on the top
>> of my list are:
>>
>> 1) Smarter fee handling on the client side, instead of hard-coded fees. I
>> was busy today generating scatter-plots and histograms of transaction fees
>> versus priorities to get some insight into what miner policies look like
>> right now.
>>
>> 2) "First double-spend" relaying and alerting, to better support
>> low-value in-person transactions. Related:
>> *Have *a *Snack*, Pay with *Bitcoins*<http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/848064fa2e80f88a57aef43d7d5956c6/P2P2013_093.pdf>;
>>
>>
>> 3) Work on 2-3 whitepapers on why we need to increase or remove the 1MB
>> block size limit, how we can do it safely, and go through all of the
>> arguments that have been made against it and explain why they're wrong.
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Gavin Andresen
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130816/7799bb62/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:The only other thing I'd like to see there is the start of a new anti-DoS
framework. I think once the outline is in place other people will be able
to fill it in appropriately. But the current framework has to be left
behind.
If I had to choose one thing to evict to make time for that, it'd be the
whitepapers. At the moment we still have plenty of headroom in block sizes,
even post April. It can probably be safely delayed for a while.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
> Cool. Maybe it's time for another development update on the foundation
> blog?
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 3:00 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Mike asked what non-0.9 code I'm working on; the three things on the top
>> of my list are:
>>
>> 1) Smarter fee handling on the client side, instead of hard-coded fees. I
>> was busy today generating scatter-plots and histograms of transaction fees
>> versus priorities to get some insight into what miner policies look like
>> right now.
>>
>> 2) "First double-spend" relaying and alerting, to better support
>> low-value in-person transactions. Related:
>> *Have *a *Snack*, Pay with *Bitcoins*<http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/848064fa2e80f88a57aef43d7d5956c6/P2P2013_093.pdf>;
>>
>>
>> 3) Work on 2-3 whitepapers on why we need to increase or remove the 1MB
>> block size limit, how we can do it safely, and go through all of the
>> arguments that have been made against it and explain why they're wrong.
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Gavin Andresen
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130816/7799bb62/attachment.html>;