From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VAJ4c-0000JV-Nd for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 12:24:10 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.47; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f47.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f47.google.com ([209.85.219.47]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VAJ4b-0006HP-La for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 12:24:10 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id g12so2112606oah.6 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 05:24:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.95.229 with SMTP id dn5mr1106993oeb.26.1376655844230; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 05:24:04 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.80.165 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 05:24:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 14:24:04 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: p5n4raRsp7KUDGFQNSxK6xQS4aQ Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0118470a92ce5404e40faa7c X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1VAJ4b-0006HP-La Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Gavin's post-0.9 TODO list... 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: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 12:24:10 -0000 --089e0118470a92ce5404e40faa7c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 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 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 >> >> > --089e0118470a92ce5404e40faa7c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The only other thing I'd like to see there is the star= t of a new anti-DoS framework. I think once the outline is in place other p= eople will be able to fill it in appropriately. But the current framework h= as 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 headroo= m 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:<= br>
Cool. Maybe it's time for another development update o= n the foundation blog?


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

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

2) "First double-spend" relaying and alerting= , to better support low-value in-person transactions. =C2=A0Related:=C2=A0<= /div>

Have=C2=A0a=C2=A0Snack, Pay with=C2=A0Bitcoins=C2=A0


3) Work on 2-3 whitepapers on why we need to increase o= r 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= 9;re wrong.

--
--
Gavin Andresen



--089e0118470a92ce5404e40faa7c--