Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Bitcoin-development] questions about bitcoin-XT code fork & non-consensus hard-fork

[Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1689 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 02:43:19PM +0800, Pindar Wong wrote:
> > Yup, though keep in mind the regulatory question is more than just how
> > your local jurisdiction views Bitcoin, but rather how your customers'
> > jurisdictions view Bitcoin.
> >
> > Of course, when I say "customers" above, I mean the entire Bitcoin
> > community that is ultimately buying the new coins produced by miners and
> > paying fees to them!
> >
> 
> I'm sorry for the distraction with the mailing list problems.
> 
> Taking an ecosystem view, the miners are important, so are all the other
> participants who rely on it and  invest time, effort and energy to make
> Bitcoin work and work well.

Agreed.

IMO any change to the blocksize needs explicit mechanisms to let all
Bitcoin holders have a say in it.

> I am in contact with Primavera and it would appear that the Cyberport is
> available for use on October 14 and 15 (Wed/Thursday).

Great! Glad to hear.

> Last November, this was where the Global Bitcoin Summit (Hong Kong)
> <http://www.cyberport.hk/en/about_cyberport/our_5_centres/collaboration_centre/collaboration_news/2146>
> was hosted with the participation of many of China's leading
> Bitcoin-related companies. There is a meeting now in Shanghai.
> 
> It would be an honour to host a more technical meeting to discuss BIP100,
> 101 et al. should be interest to do so.

Are you thinking this more technical meeting should be before or after
the October event? Perhaps a better question, is what exactly do you see
being discussed at a technical meeting?

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000007fc13ce02072d9cb2a6d51fae41fefcde7b3b283803d24

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]