[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       bitcoin-ml
Subject:    [Bitcoin-ml] Nov 13 Hardfork Preliminary Technical Spec
From:       freetrader () tuta ! io (freetrader)
Date:       2017-11-03 11:19:49
Message-ID: Ky0aw3u--3-0 () tuta ! io
[Download RAW message or body]

> What data or methodology is not being presented?

I'll take this to private email with you.

--

freetrader at tuta.io

GPG fingerprint: CC32 9A4F B0E4 1392 8295? 05FE C07A 7C34 5E86 B06C



3. Nov 2017 11:51 by wordsgalore at gmail.com:


> What data or methodology is not being presented?  If you mean
> simulations, that does not occur to me as a problem because I run my
> own, and post the ones I think are enlightening.  The others are using
> mining.py.
> 
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 6:31 AM, freetrader <> freetrader at tuta.io> > wrote:
> > Scott,
> > 
> > As I wrote, my complaint is not with the algorithm per se, but with the
> > process.
> > Many words have been said about that, but I will clarify:
> > 
> > We cannot allow ourselves to make criticial protocol choices based on
> > unpublished data.
> > 
> > If the data and methodology is not presented, or it's not reproducible, then
> > we cannot accept something as true.
> > 
> > I firmly believe that to get a better outcome *most of the time* we ought to
> > stick to deciding
> > based on the data we have, not on the data we don't have - especially when
> > confronted with
> > a time-critical decision.
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > freetrader at tuta.io
> > 
> > GPG fingerprint: CC32 9A4F B0E4 1392 8295  05FE C07A 7C34 5E86 B06C
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 2. Nov 2017 16:47 by >> wordsgalore at gmail.com>> :
> > 
> > 
> > I'm curious what your complaint is. I'm OK with it, other than
> > wanting a smaller N. I'll open an issue for people to make
> > objections.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 10:45 AM, freetrader via bitcoin-ml
> > <>> bitcoin-ml at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> > wrote:
> > 
> > I've since merged this, but this does not mean at all that the review phase
> > is over, just that comments and improvements should please be done via PRs
> > or raising Issues on the repo.
> > 
> > Link to the document:
> > 
> > https://github.com/Bitcoin-UAHF/spec/blob/master/nov-13-hardfork-spec.md
> > 
> > Despite my own dissatisfaction with the process of choosing the algorithm
> > for this fork, I trust we can constructively make it past our differences,
> > make this another successful upgrade and improve on it for the next one.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > --
> > 
> > freetrader at tuta.io
> > 
> > GPG fingerprint: CC32 9A4F B0E4 1392 8295 05FE C07A 7C34 5E86 B06C
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 2. Nov 2017 00:42 by >> bitcoin-ml at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> :
> > 
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > 
> > I have put up a pull request for an the technical details of the Nov 13th
> > Hardfork. If you have a moment, please see
> > https://github.com/Bitcoin-UAHF/spec/pull/25/files>>  and provide feedback. I
> > would like to ensure it is legible, and accurate, for everyone who needs to
> > implement these changes.
> > 
> > Kind regards,
> > Shea
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-ml mailing list
> > bitcoin-ml at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-ml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-ml/attachments/20171103/62072eba/attachment-0001.html>



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]