From: jl2012@xbt•hk
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin development mailing list <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Questiosn about BIP100
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 23:02:47 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <038c418c354b4b4559137652282e88b4@xbt.hk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADm_WcYXEu2dWCBWJwzSJnp6A4iFsR1eBXrQinQmd_NRXAs9Vw@mail.gmail.com>
Mode could be ruled out immediately. Just consider this: 34% 8MB, 33%
1.5MB, 33% 1.2MB
I personally believe the median is the most natural and logical choice.
51% of miners can always force the 49% to follow the simple majority
choice through a 51% attack. Using median will eliminate the incentive
to 51% attack due to this reason. The incentive to 51% attack will exist
when you use any value other than 50-percentile. The further it is from
50, the bigger the incentive.
Having said that, I don't think it is an absolutely bad idea to use a
value other than 50-percentile. The exact value is debatable.
However, if you use something other than median, you should make it
symmetrical. For example, the block size will increase if the
20-percentile is bigger than the current limit, and the block size will
decrease if the 80-percentile is smaller than the current limit.
Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-08-27 16:49 寫到:
> 20th percentile, though there is some argument to take the 'mode' of
> several tranches
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Andrew C <achow101@gmail•com> wrote:
>
>> I have been reading the pdf and one thing I can't figure out is what
>> you mean by "most common floor". Is that the smallest block size
>> that has a vote or the block size with the most votes or something
>> else?
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:40 AM Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail•com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Great questions.
>>
>> - Currently working on technical BIP draft and implementation,
>> hopefully for ScalingBitcoin.org. Only the PDF is publicly
>> available as of today.
>> - Yes, the initial deployment is in the same manner as size votes.
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Andrew C via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Is there any client or code that currently implements BIP 100? And
>> how will it be deployed? WIll the initial fork be deployed in the
>> same manner that the max block size changes are deployed described
>> in the bip?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev [1]
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-28 3:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-21 23:38 Andrew C
2015-08-24 14:40 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-08-27 15:07 ` Andrew C
2015-08-27 20:49 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-08-28 3:02 ` jl2012 [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=038c418c354b4b4559137652282e88b4@xbt.hk \
--to=jl2012@xbt$(echo .)hk \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jgarzik@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox