From: "t. khan" <teekhan42@gmail•com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - 'Block75' - New algorithm
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 14:32:24 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGCNRJp71NCxQ3jk4hu-kXF94RiqfeD=AVnxR37TrJ7bDG310w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2273244.fZU5ULDz4l@cherry>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1412 bytes --]
Math should decide the max block size, not humans (miners in this
case). The goal of Block75 is to manage the max block size without any
human intervention.
Under Block75, miners don't have any direct control but could still choose
to mine smaller blocks (same as now), though doing so would cost them the
fees from transactions they didn't include in their blocks.
A maximum block size is necessary to prevent a single nefarious miner from
creating a ridiculously large block which would break the network.
- t.k.
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail•ch> wrote:
> On Monday, 2 January 2017 13:04:37 CET t. khan via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Thoughts?
>
> This proposal doesn't change the block size, it only changes the maximum
> block size. Which is expected, nothing bad there.
>
> The direct consequence of this, though is that the miners set the maximum
> block size. Because they decide on the actual created block size.
>
> This leads me to the simple question why we can't just give the miners full
> control of the maximum block size directly?
>
> The fact of the matter is that miners have for the full history of Bitcoin
> been able to set the block size, until they hit the 1MB limit.
> And your proposal keeps that property, but why have a maximum in the
> protocol?
> --
> Tom Zander
> Blog: https://zander.github.io
> Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2179 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-02 19:32 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 [this message]
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
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='CAGCNRJp71NCxQ3jk4hu-kXF94RiqfeD=AVnxR37TrJ7bDG310w@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=teekhan42@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/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