<gmaxwell> bramm: a year ago when a bunch of VC influx into mining was happening I had _several_ conversations with business people telling me they planned to have 60-75% of the hashpower. For the first one I was very concerned and stressed, trying fruitlessly to convince some hypomanic agressive business person that doing this, if possible, would be a huge loss that would undermine the value of the bitcoins recieved. .... but for the se
cond ...
<gmaxwell> ... and subsiquent ones I worred less because I can _add_, and indeed things have not worked out so well for these folks.
damn, that's unfortunate. is it reasonable to hope that it won't matter? i mean, you make the request in FF with a session ticket. then you re-request under the hood in python without the session ticket. is that going to screw anything up, i would have thought that the application layer wouldn't care.
oakpacific is tempted to ask for a crypto review in the channel again
oakpacific, yeah see him there from time to time
oakpacific
and which rusty? rusty russell?
dansmith_btc
now that we moved to via-python request, this tls ticket doesnt affect us. however i'm upset at the FF dev process. Why not leave two separate prefs - for tls ticket and for tls session ID? Now they want to make a new pref which toggles them both but not either or.
waxwing
dansmith_btc, yeah agreed. i think maybe they have a tendency to cut things out quite ruthlessly, unfortunately it isn't communicated in any way either.