gabe appleton [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-06-07 📝 Original message:Just pushed the template ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-06-07
📝 Original message:Just pushed the template for Arguments 3, 4, 6, and a full Argument 2.
Argument 5 should be pro, but is currently not defined. Argument 6 may be
merged with Argument 4 if you think that's necessary.
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 2:41 AM, gabe appleton <gappleto97 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Nothing to apologize for. And yes, that's the correct one.
> On Jun 6, 2015 2:39 AM, "Pindar Wong" <pindar.wong at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OK... sorry for my confusion.
>>
>> https://github.com/EthanHeilman/BlockSizeDebate
>>
>> it is.
>>
>> p.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 2:37 PM, gabe appleton <gappleto97 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Please use the one it's originally forked from that Ethan made. I don't
>>> want to be the one who sorts through what's valid and what isn't, as I
>>> don't have as low-level an understanding as I'd like. I don't feel
>>> qualified.
>>> On Jun 6, 2015 2:34 AM, "Pindar Wong" <pindar.wong at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Gabe.
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/gappleto97/BlockSizeDebate
>>>>
>>>> github's reachable via vpn.
>>>>
>>>> p.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 2:28 PM, gabe appleton <gappleto97 at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah. We made a git repo instead, so we don't have to bother with the
>>>>> exclusive-by-default wiki policies. It's linked in this email chain.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll be getting home tomorrow, so I should be able to start back up on
>>>>> this. A few days from now we should throw this on /r/Bitcoin so we can get
>>>>> some more public comment on it. They already gave me a few leads to chase.
>>>>> On Jun 5, 2015 11:34 PM, "Pindar Wong" <pindar.wong at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Gabe,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you ever get an answer to this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I"ll have some time tomorrow to be able to help with some work on
>>>>>> this and will need to do it myself anyways since I'm not sure I understand
>>>>>> the nuances, where bitcoin XT fits into the scheme of things (or not) etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would have thought that there would be a testnet4 by now using 8mb
>>>>>> blocks... but hey that's just me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> p.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:52 AM, gabe appleton <gappleto97 at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't have permission to create a page. If someone else does, I'll
>>>>>>> happily get a framework started.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Ethan Heilman <eth3rs at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I second this, I don't have time to read the large number of emails
>>>>>>>> generated every day from the block size debate. A summary of the various
>>>>>>>> positions and arguments would be extremely helpful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:02 PM, gabe appleton <
>>>>>>>> gappleto97 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also, can we try to get a wiki page for the debate? That way we
>>>>>>>>> could condense the information as much as possible. I'll be willing to
>>>>>>>>> assist if the page gets approval.
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 2015 6:41 PM, "Mats Henricson" <mats at henricson.se>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My fingers have been itching many times now, this debate
>>>>>>>>>> drives me nuts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I just wish all posters could follow two simple principles:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. Read up. Yes. All of what has been written. Yes, it will
>>>>>>>>>> take many hours. But if you're rehashing what other
>>>>>>>>>> smarter people have said over and over before, you're
>>>>>>>>>> wasting hundreds of peoples time. Please don't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Be helpful. Suggest alternatives. Just cristizising is
>>>>>>>>>> just destructive. If you want no change, then say so.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mats
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>>>>>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150607/101b37a2/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:Just pushed the template for Arguments 3, 4, 6, and a full Argument 2.
Argument 5 should be pro, but is currently not defined. Argument 6 may be
merged with Argument 4 if you think that's necessary.
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 2:41 AM, gabe appleton <gappleto97 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Nothing to apologize for. And yes, that's the correct one.
> On Jun 6, 2015 2:39 AM, "Pindar Wong" <pindar.wong at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OK... sorry for my confusion.
>>
>> https://github.com/EthanHeilman/BlockSizeDebate
>>
>> it is.
>>
>> p.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 2:37 PM, gabe appleton <gappleto97 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Please use the one it's originally forked from that Ethan made. I don't
>>> want to be the one who sorts through what's valid and what isn't, as I
>>> don't have as low-level an understanding as I'd like. I don't feel
>>> qualified.
>>> On Jun 6, 2015 2:34 AM, "Pindar Wong" <pindar.wong at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Gabe.
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/gappleto97/BlockSizeDebate
>>>>
>>>> github's reachable via vpn.
>>>>
>>>> p.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 2:28 PM, gabe appleton <gappleto97 at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah. We made a git repo instead, so we don't have to bother with the
>>>>> exclusive-by-default wiki policies. It's linked in this email chain.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll be getting home tomorrow, so I should be able to start back up on
>>>>> this. A few days from now we should throw this on /r/Bitcoin so we can get
>>>>> some more public comment on it. They already gave me a few leads to chase.
>>>>> On Jun 5, 2015 11:34 PM, "Pindar Wong" <pindar.wong at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Gabe,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you ever get an answer to this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I"ll have some time tomorrow to be able to help with some work on
>>>>>> this and will need to do it myself anyways since I'm not sure I understand
>>>>>> the nuances, where bitcoin XT fits into the scheme of things (or not) etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would have thought that there would be a testnet4 by now using 8mb
>>>>>> blocks... but hey that's just me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> p.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:52 AM, gabe appleton <gappleto97 at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't have permission to create a page. If someone else does, I'll
>>>>>>> happily get a framework started.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Ethan Heilman <eth3rs at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I second this, I don't have time to read the large number of emails
>>>>>>>> generated every day from the block size debate. A summary of the various
>>>>>>>> positions and arguments would be extremely helpful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:02 PM, gabe appleton <
>>>>>>>> gappleto97 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also, can we try to get a wiki page for the debate? That way we
>>>>>>>>> could condense the information as much as possible. I'll be willing to
>>>>>>>>> assist if the page gets approval.
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 2015 6:41 PM, "Mats Henricson" <mats at henricson.se>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My fingers have been itching many times now, this debate
>>>>>>>>>> drives me nuts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I just wish all posters could follow two simple principles:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. Read up. Yes. All of what has been written. Yes, it will
>>>>>>>>>> take many hours. But if you're rehashing what other
>>>>>>>>>> smarter people have said over and over before, you're
>>>>>>>>>> wasting hundreds of peoples time. Please don't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Be helpful. Suggest alternatives. Just cristizising is
>>>>>>>>>> just destructive. If you want no change, then say so.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mats
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>>>>>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150607/101b37a2/attachment.html>;