1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1WSUW8-0001Um-4H
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:48:00 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
designates 62.13.148.106 as permitted sender)
client-ip=62.13.148.106; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
helo=outmail148106.authsmtp.co.uk;
Received: from outmail148106.authsmtp.co.uk ([62.13.148.106])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1WSUW6-0003BM-NO for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:48:00 +0000
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
by punt18.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id s2PGlp0x078557;
Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:47:51 GMT
Received: from [10.54.233.254] ([207.164.179.98]) (authenticated bits=0)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id s2PGlm1d057442
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:47:49 GMT
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP16pR0pJmZaD5JgCHf9WKjcMAxyuNz2iieuOE6G9E0KkA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140322084702.GA13436@savin> <20140322150836.GG3180@nl.grid.coop>
<20140322190825.GB6047@savin> <532DE7E6.4050304@monetize.io>
<20140325122851.GA9818@savin>
<CABsx9T149f9of9+sYMFazAxtRi=ZJrpA1B41buERD3+j7NGKmg@mail.gmail.com>
<20140325134918.GB7929@savin>
<CANEZrP16pR0pJmZaD5JgCHf9WKjcMAxyuNz2iieuOE6G9E0KkA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=UTF-8
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:47:46 -0400
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Message-ID: <0eba07b6-ef9a-4115-8233-92f0203e434d@email.android.com>
X-Server-Quench: 3353ca4b-b43d-11e3-b802-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aQdMdAcUFVQGAgsB AmIbWlJeVFp7XWo7 aQpWcwRbZlRPWAx0
WUBWRlRXCwQmQh5h cUJDU01ycgJCfHw+ ZEBjW3YVX0d/dhUs
RhxJR2kFMXphaTUc TRJQdwFJcANIexZF O1F6ACIKLwdSbGoL
NQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpY RgYVKF8UXXNDIiQx SlUJHTwuG1ZNXz8+
Kx0jK1gVBldZKVg3 NFI7SDp/
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 207.164.179.98/465
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1WSUW6-0003BM-NO
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
Gavin Andresen <gavin@bitcoinfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Tree-chains preliminary summary
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:48:00 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
For the record, tree chains is designed to be a soft-fork upgrade to bitcoin, at least if we can get the economics to work out. Assuming it does, you would do this by defining bitcoin itself to be the top level chain, and carrying what appear to be anyone can spend txouts from block to block so that transaction outputs can be created when funds are redeemed in the top block chain from children lower in the tree. Very similar ideas as the chain to chain stuff via spv proofs that Mark and Adam were talking about here earlier, although I think the order and reorganisation guarantees is a big advantage over their unsynched chain model. Most of the other ideas are identical, and they deserve credit.
I'm on the currency design panel at the Princeton Bitcoin Research Conference this week - tree chains will be discussed informally if not on the panel itself.
Regarding cryptocurrency research related posts, the feedback I've gotten has always been quite positive. You are in the minority as far as I can tell, and anyway the volume of such posts is a small part of the total list volume.
As for the rest of your email, doctor, heal thyself. Gavin's constant namecalling of legit and well accepted scaling concerns as FUD has irritated many people for over a year now, among many other things. Statements similar to what you claim are said about me are also often said to me about you and Gavin.
But anyway, reply off list please.
On 25 March 2014 11:20:05 GMT-04:00, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>A few months ago I had a conversation with an executive at a Bitcoin
>company, and I suggested their developers should get involved with the
>development list. I was told that they are all subscribed but refuse to
>post. Puzzled, I asked why, maybe the process isn't clear or we didn't
>talk
>about what they were interested in? No, it's because in that executives
>words "They see how Peter Todd shoots people down in flames and want
>nothing to do with that".
>
>Peter, you were named explicitly as the source of the problem. Your
>immediate knee-jerk reaction to anyone who disagrees with you is making
>this forum aggressive and ugly - it puts other people off from
>contributing. For what it's worth, if I were the moderator of this list
>I
>would have banned you a long time ago because I value a friendly
>atmosphere
>more than your "insights", which are often deeply suspect (as in this
>case).
>
>Besides, ground up redesigns of Bitcoin like what you propose are more
>appropriate for bitcointalk. So please take it there.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: APG v1.0.9
iQFQBAEBCAA6BQJTMbMyMxxQZXRlciBUb2RkIChsb3cgc2VjdXJpdHkga2V5KSA8
cGV0ZUBwZXRlcnRvZGQub3JnPgAKCRAZnIM7qOfwheooB/9pKwUKLni8ZBPfe7qQ
e3dTTWXeottw1dOT1iUDvk2VVRe0ou38UZhqVQTr9KL3sf6OKsijwb7mgPdoSolA
ZJ30mPk68KPMdmESfDeXvl8l/hdXCdI1mHmeAcUwirH85eVc9olBL5AKOpfIFtPx
ReagvnMVy5nWguGnRNq4O3A5G7BBcFWnIhTjj656Hsqywf0j2l9P+JcgSpHhOupF
q/v6Ybeae5UJHmINMA9Mw5isZT1uFGDxYPoG6xvz0/O/gaPVTXNQiQJa9rq9v0wp
+EQEF5br+wN1VmBQOYV+6ig5Ttz4s4i+tCyVIZPF5HKmipBuK+mtDT81dqxRqh7q
dF86
=37x3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
