From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UFt08-00032u-FM for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:14:20 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1UFt07-0007g2-7R for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:14:20 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [173.170.142.26]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A481327A2968 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:14:13 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:14:03 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.7.3-gentoo; KDE/4.9.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <201303131256.30144.luke@dashjr.org> <201303132106.45334.andyparkins@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201303132106.45334.andyparkins@gmail.com> X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201303132114.04596.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -2.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1UFt07-0007g2-7R Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.8.1 ideas X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:14:20 -0000 On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:06:44 PM Andy Parkins wrote: > On Wednesday 13 Mar 2013 12:56:29 Luke-Jr wrote: > > Here's a simple proposal to start discussion from... > > It seems to me that the biggest failure was not the development of two > chains, but the assurance to users (by the client) that their transactions > were confirmed. These are both the same thing. Luke