Benjamin Cordes [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2013-10-21 to 2014-05-21
💬 Posted a total of 5 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: Bitcoin-development
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-07 15:21:51

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2014-05-21
📝 Original message:I'm doing a hard fork, too. In my version 78% of the wealth will go to me,
which I will redistribute on based on personal preferences. Come and join
me into a new and obviously superior system.
More seriously though: the paper is not bad, but I can guarantee you that
Bitcoin will *never* change that drastically. That's the whole point. It
has an indestructible kernel (think DNA). Rather it will do a slow death,
probably in 5-10 years. If you care for PoS than just launch your own.
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Nick Simpson <nick at mynicknet.com> wrote:
> Referring to the subsidy for miners as "wasting it on miners" isn't going
> to garner you much favor.
>
>
> On May 20, 2014 11:12:53 AM CDT, Stephen Reed <stephenreed at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I completed a whitepaper for Bitcoin a proof-of-stake version which uses
>> a single nomadic verifiable mint agent and distributed replication of a
>> single blockchain by compensated full nodes to achieve 6-hop, sub-second
>> transaction acknowledgement times. Plus it pays dividends to holders
>> instead of wasting it on miners. Subsidized transaction fees are thus lower.
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C4m-MFnxw0JjDorzrKs_IRQRqD9ila79o0IDt6KsbcE
>>
>> Because the code is not yet written, this idea is half-baked so to speak.
>> Comments appreciated on my project thread, which will be a development
>> diary. I plan a hard fork of the Bitcoin blockchain in early 2016, after a
>> year of public system testing, and conditioned on wide approval.
>>
>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=584719.msg6397403#msg6397403
>>
>> -Steve
>>
>> Stephen L. Reed
>> Austin, Texas, USA
>> 512.791.7860
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
>> Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos.
>> Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available
>> Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
> Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos.
> Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform
> available
> Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140521/4ae8a65a/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 15:16:57

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2014-04-01
📝 Original message:luke, you might enjoy the book Topos of Music. It's a complete
mathematical music theory by a student of Grothendieck. He advanced
Euler's theories of harmony based on advanced category theory. I'm
sure there are many applications to Bitcoin.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 01, 2014 7:00:07 PM Pieter Wuille wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I understand this is a controversial proposal, but bear with me please.
>>
>> I believe we cannot accept the current subsidy schedule anymore, so I
>> wrote a small draft BIP with a proposal to turn Bitcoin into a
>> limited-supply currency. Dogecoin has already shown how easy such
>> changes are, so I consider this a worthwhile idea to be explored.
>>
>> The text can be found here: https://gist.github.com/sipa/9920696
>>
>> Please comment!
>
> I cleaned it up a bit. By 2214, we should be using tonal numbers after all:
>
> https://gist.github.com/luke-jr/9920788
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

2023-06-07 15:10:34

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2013-12-31
📝 Original message:Interesting. I think the original BitDNS discussion was more interesting
that what currently is happening with namecoin, see
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.0
Satoshi said there: "1) IP records don't need to be in the chain, just do
registrar function not DNS. And CA problem solved, neat."
Besides, ICANN is currently selling out the global public namespace - not
that anybody really cares about such measly topics as the ownership of
global namespaces. And so some guy on the Cayman Islands is now the largest
holder of TLD's.
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:39 AM, Drak <drak at zikula.org> wrote:
> > The NSA has the ability, right now to change every download of
> bitcoin-qt,
> > on the fly and the only cure is encryption.
>
> Please cut it out with the snake oil pedaling. This is really over the
> top. You're invoking the NSA as the threat here? Okay. The NSA can
> trivially compromise an HTTPS download site: even ignoring the CA
> insecurity, and government run CAs certificate authorities issue CA
> certs to random governments and corporations for dataloss prevention
> purposes. Not to mention unparalleled access to exploits.
>
> The downloads are protected by something far stronger than SSL
> already, which might even have a chance against the NSA. Actual
> signatures of the downloads with offline keys.
>
> I'm all pro-SSL and all that, but you are— piece by piece— really
> convincing me that it produces an entirely false sense of security
> which is entirely unjustified.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT
> organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance
> affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your
> Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics
> Pro!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131231/dea5bd70/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 15:07:43

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2013-10-21
📝 Original message:I believe a better solution would to use a github clone such as gitlab,
which sits on top of the git repo, and allows for custom code around the
BIP process. Potentially one could even build Bitcoin into such a BIP
system. If somebody wants to support a BIP he donates Bitcoins to that
proposal. Somebody who actually implements the BIP can receive some percent
of the bounty, while some percentage goes to the Bitcoin foundation. Via
such a platform one could create assurance contracts to kickstart BIP
developments or Bitcoin extensions (public infrastructure which is not part
of the core, such as opensourced exchanges).
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Monday, October 21, 2013 7:38:37 PM Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
> > 1) Should the protocol specification page also be codified into BIP(s)?
>
> Probably wouldn't hurt, but it'd likely need a rewrite in a more modular
> and
> formal form.
>
> > 2) Should the current wiki pages be taken down / forwarded to the git
> repo
> > or be auto updated from the git repo?
>
> Since it's the same format, I'd keep it up there, maybe with a link to the
> git
> repo on the main BIP index wiki page.
>
> > 3) Even though the information in BIP 50 is valuable, should it really be
> > considered a BIP?
>
> It's a hardforking protocol change, so IMO yes.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> October Webinars: Code for Performance
> Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
> Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most
> from
> the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131021/35473229/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 15:07:43

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2013-10-21
📝 Original message:I believe a better solution would to use a gitlab clone such as gitlab,
which sits on top of the git repo, and allows for custom code around the
BIP process. Potentially one could even build Bitcoin into such a BIP
system. If somebody wants to support a BIP he donates Bitcoins to that
proposal. Somebody who actually implements the BIP can receive some percent
of the bounty (while some percent goes to the Bitcoin foundation). Via such
a platform one could create assurance contracts to kickstart BIP
developments or Bitcoin extensions (public infrastructure which is not part
of the core, such as opensourced exchanges).
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Monday, October 21, 2013 7:38:37 PM Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote:
> > 1) Should the protocol specification page also be codified into BIP(s)?
>
> Probably wouldn't hurt, but it'd likely need a rewrite in a more modular
> and
> formal form.
>
> > 2) Should the current wiki pages be taken down / forwarded to the git
> repo
> > or be auto updated from the git repo?
>
> Since it's the same format, I'd keep it up there, maybe with a link to the
> git
> repo on the main BIP index wiki page.
>
> > 3) Even though the information in BIP 50 is valuable, should it really be
> > considered a BIP?
>
> It's a hardforking protocol change, so IMO yes.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> October Webinars: Code for Performance
> Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
> Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most
> from
> the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131021/d874a3d8/attachment.html>