User contributions for Lapp0
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
12 August 2015
- 05:1905:19, 12 August 2015 diff hist +2 Block size limit controversy Moved fee cost to unclear arguments. Centralization argument needs clarification.
- 05:0805:08, 12 August 2015 diff hist +445 Talk:Block size limit controversy No edit summary
- 05:0505:05, 12 August 2015 diff hist +78 Talk:Block size limit controversy forgot signature
- 05:0405:04, 12 August 2015 diff hist +794 Talk:Block size limit controversy No edit summary
- 04:5804:58, 12 August 2015 diff hist −469 Block size limit controversy "Congestion" is a myth. A sufficient fee, as always, will get your transaction confirmed. Higher fees is a valid complaint, but "congestion" is not. Larger blocks cannot prevent the mempool from becoming too large and causing a client to crash.
10 July 2015
- 07:3707:37, 10 July 2015 diff hist +608 m Scalability removed run on sentence, expanded on claim of low cost full nodes, removed mention of time improvements since security shouldn't be discussed in terms of maybe working in the future unless it is explicitly stated as "maybe it will work in the future".
9 July 2015
- 01:3501:35, 9 July 2015 diff hist +159 m Best Practices →Anonymity current
- 01:3201:32, 9 July 2015 diff hist +99 Best Practices →Local Wallets
- 01:2901:29, 9 July 2015 diff hist +18 Best Practices →Local Wallets
- 01:2801:28, 9 July 2015 diff hist −1 Best Practices →Local Wallets
6 July 2015
- 08:0008:00, 6 July 2015 diff hist +15 Softfork →2015 BIP66 Blockchain Fork
- 07:5907:59, 6 July 2015 diff hist +12 Softfork →2015 BIP66 Blockchain Fork
- 07:5607:56, 6 July 2015 diff hist +1,384 Softfork →Security
- 07:3207:32, 6 July 2015 diff hist −4 m Softfork No edit summary
5 July 2015
27 June 2015
- 09:0109:01, 27 June 2015 diff hist +96 Block size limit controversy No edit summary
17 June 2015
- 18:0218:02, 17 June 2015 diff hist −2 Block size limit controversy Probably should be its own section
- 18:0118:01, 17 June 2015 diff hist +410 Block size limit controversy removed SNARKS because they don't require a blocksize increase, added unclear arguments section, moved some notes there
- 17:4917:49, 17 June 2015 diff hist −70 Block size limit controversy removed non-statement
15 June 2015
- 04:1704:17, 15 June 2015 diff hist +57 Scalability rewording, added benefit
- 04:1404:14, 15 June 2015 diff hist +8 Scalability fix broken link
- 04:1304:13, 15 June 2015 diff hist +1,927 Scalability Added other scalability options
- 03:2603:26, 15 June 2015 diff hist −242 Block size limit controversy Satoshi quotes probably belong in the Entities positions section if they belong here at all
13 June 2015
- 10:1010:10, 13 June 2015 diff hist −63 Block size limit controversy Block Sizes being full aren't a reason for a hardfork
1 June 2015
- 15:3515:35, 1 June 2015 diff hist +27 Block size limit controversy →Argument in opposition of increasing the blocksize
- 11:0911:09, 1 June 2015 diff hist +76 Block size limit controversy No edit summary
- 01:1901:19, 1 June 2015 diff hist +886 Block size limit controversy No edit summary
16 March 2015
- 10:1510:15, 16 March 2015 diff hist +521 Address reuse high fees when displaying address balances
15 March 2015
- 01:1301:13, 15 March 2015 diff hist +105 Majority attack No edit summary
12 March 2015
- 18:2018:20, 12 March 2015 diff hist +367 Mastering Bitcoin No edit summary
2 March 2015
- 20:3720:37, 2 March 2015 diff hist −139 Thin Client Security Removed link to ambiguous comment
- 06:2306:23, 2 March 2015 diff hist −119 Paper wallet Removed websites promoting and using bad practices
28 February 2015
- 18:1718:17, 28 February 2015 diff hist +76 Talk:Thin Client Security formatting current
- 18:1518:15, 28 February 2015 diff hist +8 m Thin Client Security typo
- 18:1118:11, 28 February 2015 diff hist +5 Talk:Thin Client Security →Major Restructuring
- 18:1118:11, 28 February 2015 diff hist +258 Talk:Thin Client Security →Major Restructuring
- 18:0818:08, 28 February 2015 diff hist −2,793 Thin Client Security Replace "valid" with "irreversible" where appropriate without adding incorrect statements to the article.
27 February 2015
- 19:5519:55, 27 February 2015 diff hist +50 Talk:Paper Wallet (Single Key) →Is there a good reason to omit bitcoinpaperwallet.com from this page?
- 19:5419:54, 27 February 2015 diff hist +241 Talk:Paper Wallet (Single Key) →Is there a good reason to omit bitcoinpaperwallet.com from this page?
- 05:3105:31, 27 February 2015 diff hist −433 Talk:Thin Client Security Undo revision 54657 by Lapp0 (talk)
- 05:3005:30, 27 February 2015 diff hist +433 Talk:Thin Client Security →Major Restructuring: new section
- 05:3005:30, 27 February 2015 diff hist +433 Talk:Thin Client Security →Major Restructuring: new section
- 05:2205:22, 27 February 2015 diff hist −2,730 Thin Client Security Attempted to remove all misuses of terms (especially "valid") and inventions of new terms (full-chain, super-well-formed), etc in order to make the article more sane. If you have any specific grievances, mention it in the talk page before reverting.
- 00:0500:05, 27 February 2015 diff hist −618 Thin Client Security Undo revision 54648 by Eldentyrell (talk) - "Full-chain" isn't common terminology and the use of it makes the article confusing. This hasn't changed in the last few hours.
26 February 2015
- 18:2318:23, 26 February 2015 diff hist −258 Thin Client Security See talk page
- 18:2318:23, 26 February 2015 diff hist +1,054 Talk:Thin Client Security No edit summary
- 01:0701:07, 26 February 2015 diff hist −258 Thin Client Security Undo revision 54428 by - Transactions don't become more valid with more block preceding it's proof. The vagueness of what Full-chain is should be elaborated on probably explaining it uses SPV proofs.
13 February 2015
- 18:4618:46, 13 February 2015 diff hist +1 Erik Voorhees no way this is current
4 February 2015
- 02:0202:02, 4 February 2015 diff hist −259 Thin Client Security Undo revision 54031 by Eldentyrell (talk) --- Your undo added misspellings and incorrect statements.