From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org, "t. khan" <teekhan42@gmail•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - 'Block75' - New algorithm
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 20:04:56 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201701022004.57540.luke@dashjr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGCNRJoN7u3yvzitH2KSmVty-p0tX9jxWLHPb8uO5CPZmxmoRg@mail.gmail.com>
On Monday, January 02, 2017 6:04:37 PM t. khan via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Thoughts? For any predictions as to how this would behave, please provide
> the numbers used to arrive at any conclusions.
It would probably behave as an ever-increasing block size limit. Spam has
typically filled blocks to the max, and miners have stopped self-enforcing
reasonable limits.
> 2. Is there any need for a minimum max blocksize? Block75 allows for
> decreasing the size as well as increasing it.
Probably it should never make it so small that a reasonable generation
transaction cannot fit. But I'm not sure this needs explicit enforcement.
> To help negate some of the risk associated with a hard fork and to prevent
> a single relatively small mining pool from blocking Block75's adoption,
> activation would occur once 900 of the last 1,000 blocks mined signaled
> support, with a grace period of 4,032 blocks.
If you can't trust miners to signal based on the community's consensus, then
don't use miner signalling at all. Just set a block height it activates.
> Thank you again to all those who commented on the previous Block75 thread.
> Together, we can make 2017 the year the block size debate ends (hopefully
> forever).
I doubt you'll get consensus for such a fundamentally broken proposal.
I certainly don't foresee any circumstance where I could reasonably support
it... The block size limit exists to restrict miners; it makes no sense to put
it in their control.
Luke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-02 20:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-02 18:04 t. khan
2017-01-02 19:01 ` Tom Zander
2017-01-02 19:32 ` t. khan
2017-01-02 20:35 ` Tom Zander
2017-01-02 21:05 ` t. khan
2017-01-02 22:33 ` Tom Zander
2017-01-02 21:19 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-01-02 22:01 ` Tom Zander
2017-01-03 14:28 ` t. khan
2017-02-13 11:21 ` Hampus Sjöberg
2017-01-02 20:04 ` Luke Dashjr [this message]
2017-01-02 20:41 ` t. khan
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=201701022004.57540.luke@dashjr.org \
--to=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=teekhan42@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