From: "t. khan" <teekhan42@gmail•com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - 'Block75' - New algorithm
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 15:41:42 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGCNRJrXCVWGf4+zqsoDsRn5rHV2PDWSj01j4WtRixJCPbPDAg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201701022004.57540.luke@dashjr.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1180 bytes --]
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
> 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.
Using the growth rate over the last year as a model (
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?daysAverageString=14 ),
Block75 would also have frequently decreased the limit. Though, yes, more
transactions would equal larger blocks over time, but that's the entire
point of this.
What is your definition of "spam"? Also, can you point to data that
supports the hypothesis that spam is filling blocks?
> 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.
>
Specifically, what is broken about it?
There would still be a block size limit, it would just change slightly
every two weeks. I agree that miners shouldn't have control of this, and
Block75 doesn't give them any (at least none they can make a profit on).
- t.k.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2127 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-02 20:41 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
2017-01-02 20:41 ` t. khan [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=CAGCNRJrXCVWGf4+zqsoDsRn5rHV2PDWSj01j4WtRixJCPbPDAg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=teekhan42@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=luke@dashjr$(echo .)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