Something went wrong.

📅 Original date posted:2015-07-24 📝 Original message:Thanks for bringing up the CCSS, Adam and Peter. I was actually working on a post inviting everyone in this mailing list to come and participate…but you guys beat me to it. :) The CCSS is an open standard, born out of the belief that sharing tblog.cryptoconsortium.org/contributing-to-the-ccss <blog.cryptoconsortium.org/contributing-to-the-ccss/> The standard: cryptoconsortium.github.io/CCSS <cryptoconsortium.github.io/CCSS/> The github repository: github.com/CryptoConsortium/CCSS <github.com/CryptoConsortium/CCSS> - Eric > On Jul 24, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 03:39:08PM +0200, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> On Friday 24. July 2015 05.37.30 Slurms MacKenzielists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150724/b837dbd2/attachment.html> -------------- nelists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150724/b837dbd2/attachment.sig>

📅 Original date posted:2015-07-23 📝 Original message:I used Google to establish that there is not already a post from 2015 that mentions "roadmap" in the subject line. Such would be a good skeleton for anyone new to the list (like me). 1. Increase the 7 Tx per second - by increasing block size. lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150723/ea7fd11a/attachment.html>

📅 Original date posted:2015-07-23 📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Does "to process into the index" include time for transport and/or block validation (presumably by bitcoind) or this this exclusively the time for Electrum Server to index a validated block? e On

🔖 Title: Electrum Server Speed Test 🏷️ Categories: bitcoin-dev 👥 Authors: • Eric Voskuil ( Eric Voskuil [ARCHIVE] ) • Thomas Voegtlin ( Thomas Voegtlin [ARCHIVE] ) • Slurms MacKenzie ( Slurms MacKenzie [ARCHIVE] ) • Matt Whitlock ( Matt Whitlock [ARCHIVE] ) • Joseph Gleason ⑈ ( Joseph Gleason ⑈ [ARCHIVE] ) 📅 Messages Date: 2015-07-23 ✉️ Message Count: 7 📚 Total Characters in Messages: 13815

📅 Original date posted:2015-07-23 📝 Original message:Thank you a lot for doing this test! Two questions: 1) A node is typically connected to many nodes that would all in parallel download said block. In your test you measured how fast new blocks that presumably are being uploaded in parallel to pastebin.com/raw.php?i=6b4NuiVQ > > > This does not support the theory that the network has the available bandwidth for increased block sizes, as in its current state 37% of nodes would fail to upload a 20MB block to a single peer in under 20 seconds (referencing a number quoted by Gavin). If the bar for suitability is placed at lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 473 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150723/042b0879/attachment-0001.sig>

📅 Original date posted:2015-07-23 📝 Original message:You may see much better throughput if you run a few servers around the globe and test based on closest-by-geoip. TCP throughput is rather significantly effected by latency, though I'm not really sure what you should be testing here, ideally. Onpastebin.com/raw.php?i=6b4NuiVQ > > > This does not support the theory that the network has the available bandwidth for increased block sizes, as in its current state 37% of nodes would fail to upload a 20MB block to a single peer in under 20 seconds (referencing a number quoted by Gavin). If the bar for suitability is placed alists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >

📅 Original date posted:2015-07-23 📝 Original message:Are you willing to share the code that you used to run the test? - Jameson On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:19 AM, slurms--- via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On this day, the Bitcoin network was crawled and reachpastebin.com/raw.php?i=6b4NuiVQ > > > This does not support the theory that the network has the available > bandwidth for increased block sizes, as in its current state 37% of nodes > would fail to upload a 20MB block to a single peer in under 20 seconds > (referencing a number quoted by Gavin). If the bar for suitability is > pllists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150723/312f6262/attachment.html>

📅 Original date posted:2015-07-24 📝 Original message:Validated - (seen on network) Settled/Cleared - 1 conf Finalised - 6 confs On Sat, 2015-07-25 at 00:37 +1000, Vincent Truong via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > "Fast transactions" > Fast transactions implies it is slower than Visa, and Visa is > 'ilists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

📅 Original date posted:2015-07-23 📝 Original message:There really isn't any need for a 3rd party here. Those "services" can just be the miners themselves. jp > On Jul 24, 2015, at 8:56 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo at gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Jul 23, 2015, at 5:45 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman <je