jonasschnelli: I'm trying to get a bucket of random testnet hosts by looking up testnet-seed.bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch manually, but none of the node IP returned seem to have port 18333 open, am I doing something wrong?
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #8186: [0.12.2] backport: getblockchaininfo: make bip9_softforks an object, not an array. (0.12...Mf1606-rpcBip9Backport) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8186
seek/read access for source files is only a problem for really huge projects, and then especially when the source is hosted on some horrible network file system (like clearcase), in any case bitcoin doesn't even come close
yea, a side effect of the bitcoin protocol having no mechensim to just fetch txn already in blocks, which has a good reason for it (among other things, it helps keep the network from being abused as a file trading DHT)
bitcoin satellites are definitely the way to go
There are other totally different alternatives though, like PIR scan services, which I think we almost have enough in bitcoin core to support as a purely external add on.
rubensayshi: you should have your own network, and stop storing data unrelated to bitcoin in the bitcoin network.
you're storing data on my disk, without benefitting me or the bitcoin ecosystem
rubensayshi: Bitcoin is a currency not a public shared database.
offtopic; gmaxwell, I've never heard any1 say counterparty competes with bitcoin, it's focus is tokens (and soon EVM), it would be insane to think it could compete with bitcoin (considering the reduced efficiency)
People involved with counterparty have told me they intend for counterparty to replace the bitcoin currency because the distribution of bitcoins is "unfair" and counterparty is "more equitable"-- I don't think it's accurate to describe it as an "upper layer" system, it's a system that explicitly is in competition with the bitcoin currency.
sipa: long story short bytespersigop enforced in AcceptToMempool broke some use case on upper layer (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8079) we have a simple way to fix it, but it would require to count signatures for a transaction a second time accuratly. Do you think it would be a problem performance wise ? I don't think so but maybe I am missing