Gary Mulder [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2015-07-30 to 2016-09-22
💬 Posted a total of 3 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: bitcoin-dev
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-09 12:46:47

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2016-09-22
📝 Original message:
On 20 September 2016 at 19:47, Olaoluwa Osuntokun <laolu32 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, y'all
>
> Excellent work!!
>
> As you noted our, Flare paper as currently written only includes a series
> of
> simulations of various topologies/parameters which are then extrapolated to
> larger network sizes. The logical next step would be to deploy a
> proto-implementation within a live testbed with real latencies,
> preferential
> attachment, etc. I'm thrilled that y'all went ahead getting your hands
> dirty
> to gauge the real-word feasibility of our scheme.
>
There's modules in Linux iptables that allows you to simulate packet loss
and latencies. While any simulation by definition will not be as good as a
real-world test, a lot of negative (i.e. failure) testing can be done in
the cloud with much faster test / debug / fix cycle times than in a
real-world deployment.
Happy to help with iptables config. if there is interest...
Regards,
Gary
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20160922/66ebecb8/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 17:37:15

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-19
📝 Original message:So guys, do we need a BIP to address the existence of XT and its possible
impact to the block chain?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150819/42c6231f/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 15:48:43

- reply

2023-06-07 15:44:16

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-07-30
📝 Original message:On 30 July 2015 at 16:12, Jorge Timón <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> wrote:
> 1) Unlike previous blocksize hardfork proposals, this uses median time
> instead of block.nTime for activation. I like that more but my
> preference is still using height for everything. But that discussion
> is not specific to this proposal, so it's better if we discuss that
> for all of them here:
>
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009731.html
Note that a "median" is a special case of a 50% percentile. If you desire
to apply a more stringent criteria you can use the 75th or even 90th
percentile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentile
Perhaps if a statistician (i.e. not me) could be found to offer her
services, she could become a resource for helping selecting the most
appropriate statistical algorithms on request (and implemented Integer math
as per Gavin, from memory), considering the consequences of learning
post-fork that a "bad statistical model" was chosen.
e.g. an exponentially weighted moving average is usually much less volatile
and harder to manipulate than a simple moving average, but still can
"respond" to short term drivers.
Regards,
Gary
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150730/b6d539f7/attachment.html>