Thanks for bringing up the CCSS, Adam and Peter.

I was actually working on a post inviting everyone in this mailing list to come and participate…but you guys beat me to it. :)

The CCSS is an open standard, born out of the belief that sharing the industry's best practices amongst each other and with the community at large benefits everyone.

To read more about it and how you can contribute, please visit http://blog.cryptoconsortium.org/contributing-to-the-ccss/ <http://blog.cryptoconsortium.org/contributing-to-the-ccss/>

The standard:  https://cryptoconsortium.github.io/CCSS/ <https://cryptoconsortium.github.io/CCSS/>

The github repository: https://github.com/CryptoConsortium/CCSS <https://github.com/CryptoConsortium/CCSS>


- Eric

> On Jul 24, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 03:39:08PM +0200, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> On Friday 24. July 2015 05.37.30 Slurms MacKenzie via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>> It's worth noting that even massive companies with $30M USD of funding don't
>>> run a single Bitcoin Core node,
>> 
>> I assume you mean that they don't have a Bitcoin Core node that is open to
>> incoming connections. Since that is the only thing you can actually test, no?
> 
> We can test the fact that blockchain.info's wallet and block explorer
> has behaved in a way consistent with not running a full node - they have
> shown invalid data that any full node would reject on multiple
> occasions, most recently invalid confirmations during the BIP66 fork.
> 
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 000000000000000006baf20e289b563e3ec69320275086169a47e9c58d4abfba
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev