@dgenr818 Right; the point being that Bitcoin’s security model need not necessitate transactions commit to signatures.
@guruvan I do have good news for you, though. If you run Core you can disable signature skipping during initial blo… https://t.co/AIWJr7SzeW
@guruvan Ah right, I had forgotten about that. Well, I have bad news for you. Line 936: https://t.co/M7HeCunNyv
@guruvan What is “TheRealBitcoin” ?
@guruvan You claim that this is “a bug.” I wish to know which software you suggest running that doesn’t contain this “bug.”
@guruvan Do tell, which full node software are you suggesting one use instead?
@deadalnix @ssoeborg @JihanWu @kristovatlas It’s not “central planning” per se unless the planners can force their… https://t.co/vkxTGAWGBr
@cdelargy The (expensive) collusion would have to occur in conjuction w/a 100% sybil attack upon a freshly syncing… https://t.co/l1bBZV5s6u
@mwilcox Yes, but it’s only needed at time of transaction creation / for recent blocks. Historical syncing of blockchain need not check.
RT @lopp: @mwilcox Once sufficient PoW protects a block, there’s little point in checking signatures. Bitcoin Core already skips it. https:…
@mwilcox Once sufficient PoW protects a block, there’s little point in checking signatures. Bitcoin Core already sk… https://t.co/lqpBg40R4I
Bitcoin’s blockchain is currently 60% larger than it needs to be; it’s full of unnecessary historical data. This data is called signatures.
Those who scoffed at the thought of $1,000 BTC are scoffing at $10,000 BTC and will scoff at $100,000 BTC.
@JihanWu @deadalnix @kristovatlas As a miner, don’t you prefer the UTXO set to be smaller so that it’s easier for you to keep in memory?
@deadalnix @kristovatlas I’ve heard these claims made in the past; are there any in-depth explanations to which you could link?
@lightcoin Yep, there are pros and cons to each. Good reading material:
https://t.co/oCCt0RuW4K
https://t.co/YcOP8Eljy4
@kristovatlas You think SegWit makes it harder to hard fork in the future?
You think SegWit makes non-SegWit transactions more expensive?
@dykstranet @TaylorGerring I’m not sure offhand, though @murchandamus probably does from the research he did for his master’s thesis.
@TaylorGerring More wallets need defragging built in
@kyuupichan If anything, SegWit users will leave more space for your non-SegWit sends, staving off some of the fee market spikes.
@A_Hannan_Ismail @MrChrisEllis “We are all Satoshi” is a meme that preaches tolerance. “Bitcoin shrugs” similarly s… https://t.co/oNAjOXYXmM
For those who are anti-SegWit: how would other people’s use of SegWit negatively impact your usage of non-SegWit transactions?
If you want to reach people who radically disagree with you, your only hope is to put yourself in their shoes & avoid tribalistic language.
In the beginning Satoshi said “let there be Bitcoin” and there was Bitcoin. Today many Satoshis say “let’s change Bitcoin” & Bitcoin shrugs.
RT @ponli137: @ARKblockchain Yes #Bitcoin is a new life form, #antifragile, feeds on energy, has metabolism, increases entropy, lets live i…
Bitcoin wallets should implement dynamic dust limits for output values. At current fee rates, no one should create outputs < 0.0005 BTC.