User contributions for Lapp0

05:3505:35, 20 January 2016 diff hist −10 Bitcoin XT "unusually" doesn't make sense in this context
05:3305:33, 20 January 2016 diff hist +217 Talk:Bitcoin XT No edit summary current

00:5900:59, 7 January 2016 diff hist −64 Bitcoin XT Reverted incorrect statements

04:1204:12, 3 December 2015 diff hist −12 Bitcoin XT "Proponent of controversy" isn't the correct way to phrase this

13:0613:06, 30 November 2015 diff hist +42 Roger Ver No edit summary

00:1700:17, 21 October 2015 diff hist +11 m Softfork typo, rephrasing
00:1400:14, 21 October 2015 diff hist +28 Scalability As explained, this page isn't about scaling the Bitcoin network and security concerns, rather scaling an individual Bitcoin client while not considering the effects on the network.

20:1620:16, 11 September 2015 diff hist +239 Block size limit controversy No edit summary
20:0920:09, 11 September 2015 diff hist +152 Block size limit controversy Clarified BIP100, BIP10

05:2105:21, 12 August 2015 diff hist +238 Talk:Block size limit controversy No edit summary
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.

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".

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

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

01:4001:40, 5 July 2015 diff hist −3 Block size limit controversy →Damage to decentralization

09:0109:01, 27 June 2015 diff hist +96 Block size limit controversy No edit summary

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

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

10:1010:10, 13 June 2015 diff hist −63 Block size limit controversy Block Sizes being full aren't a reason for a hardfork

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

10:1510:15, 16 March 2015 diff hist +521 Address reuse high fees when displaying address balances

01:1301:13, 15 March 2015 diff hist +105 Majority attack No edit summary

18:2018:20, 12 March 2015 diff hist +367 Mastering Bitcoin No edit summary

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

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.

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.

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.

18:4618:46, 13 February 2015 diff hist +1 Erik Voorhees no way this is current

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.

22:0822:08, 25 January 2015 diff hist −13 m Best Practices →Bitcoin Related Investments

21:0021:00, 23 January 2015 diff hist +7,495 N Best Practices not exhaustive
20:5020:50, 23 January 2015 diff hist +21 User:Lapp0/Best Practices →Development Risks current
20:4920:49, 23 January 2015 diff hist +91 User:Lapp0/Best Practices →Development Risks
20:4820:48, 23 January 2015 diff hist +2 User:Lapp0/Best Practices →Centralized services
20:4620:46, 23 January 2015 diff hist +13 User:Lapp0/Best Practices →Centralized services
20:4420:44, 23 January 2015 diff hist +4 User:Lapp0/Best Practices →Wallet Types
20:4320:43, 23 January 2015 diff hist +124 User:Lapp0/Best Practices →Improper Handling Of Money
20:4020:40, 23 January 2015 diff hist +5 User:Lapp0/Best Practices →Development Risks
20:2520:25, 23 January 2015 diff hist +38 User:Lapp0/Best Practices →Improper Handling Of Money
20:2520:25, 23 January 2015 diff hist −4 User:Lapp0/Best Practices →Anonymity
20:2420:24, 23 January 2015 diff hist +7,201 N User:Lapp0/Best Practices Created page with "Bitcoin is a trustless consensus system with no central authority. When you make a payment and it is confirmed into the blockchain, it is not feasible to have a "chargeback" u..."

22:2822:28, 19 January 2015 diff hist −259 m Thin Client Security invalid transactions aren't considered valid. Transactions don't become more valid with more blocks. A transaction isn't more secure with more blocks before it (height) unless I'm misunderstanding the wording.