The only other thing I'd like to see there is the start of a new anti-DoS framework. I think once the outline is in place other people will be able to fill it in appropriately. But the current framework has to be left behind.

If I had to choose one thing to evict to make time for that, it'd be the whitepapers. At the moment we still have plenty of headroom in block sizes, even post April. It can probably be safely delayed for a while.


On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
Cool. Maybe it's time for another development update on the foundation blog?


On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 3:00 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
Mike asked what non-0.9 code I'm working on; the three things on the top of my list are:

1) Smarter fee handling on the client side, instead of hard-coded fees. I was busy today generating scatter-plots and histograms of transaction fees versus priorities to get some insight into what miner policies look like right now.

2) "First double-spend" relaying and alerting, to better support low-value in-person transactions.  Related: 

Have a Snack, Pay with Bitcoins 


3) Work on 2-3 whitepapers on why we need to increase or remove the 1MB block size limit, how we can do it safely, and go through all of the arguments that have been made against it and explain why they're wrong.

--
--
Gavin Andresen