The "only bigblock" patch you want is actually available here : https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks Le lun. 17 août 2015 à 15:16, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> a écrit : > One of the comments made by the mining pools is that they won't run XT > because it is "experimental". > > Has there been any consideration to making available a version of XT with > only the blocksize changes? > > The least "experimental" version would be one that makes the absolute > minimum changes to core. > > The MAX_BLOCK_SIZE parameter could be overwritten whenever the longest tip > changes. This saves creating a new function. > > Without the consensus measuring code, the patch would be even easier. > Satoshi's proposal was just a block height comparison (a year in advance). > > The state storing code is also another complication. If the standard > "counting" upgrade system was used, then no state would need to be stored > in the database. > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:49 PM, odinn > wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> (My replies below) >> >> On 06/26/2015 06:47 AM, Tier Nolan wrote: >> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Adam Back > > > wrote: >> > >> > The hard-cap serves the purpose of a safety limit in case our >> > understanding about the economics, incentives or game-theory is >> > wrong worst case. >> > >> > >> > True. >> >> Yep. >> >> > >> > BIP 100 and 101 could be combined. Would that increase consensus? >> >> Possibly ~ In my past message(s), I've suggested that Jeff's BIP 100 >> is a better alternative to Gavin's proposal(s), but that I didn't >> think that this should be taken to mean that I am saying one thing is >> "superior" to Gavin's work, rather, I emphasized that Gavin work with >> Jeff and Adam. >> >> At least, at this stage the things are in a BIP process. >> >> If the BIP 100 and BIP 101 would be combined, what would that look >> like on paper? >> >> > >> > - Miner vote threshold reached - Wait notice period or until >> > earliest start time - Block size default target set to 1 MB - Soft >> > limit set to 1MB - Hard limit set to 8MB + double every 2 years - >> > Miner vote to decide soft limit (lowest size ignoring bottom 20% >> > but 1MB minimum) >> > >> > Block size updates could be aligned with the difficulty setting >> > and based on the last 2016 blocks. >> > >> > Miners could leave the 1MB limit in place initially. The vote is >> > to get the option to increase the block size. >> > >> > Legacy clients would remain in the network until >80% of miners >> > vote to raise the limit and a miner produces a >1MB block. >> > >> > If the growth rate over-estimates hardware improvements, the devs >> > could add a limit into the core client. If they give notice and >> > enough users update, then miners would have to accept it. >> > >> > The block size becomes min(miner's vote, core devs). Even if 4 >> > years notice is given, blocks would only be 4X optimal. >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing >> > list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > >> >> - -- >> http://abis.io ~ >> "a protocol concept to enable decentralization >> and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good" >> https://keybase.io/odinn >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1 >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVlG5oAAoJEGxwq/inSG8C0r4H/0eklB9GxgHdl4LK7UoLeYYb >> hlCiIJZ1+sRhTRIHrBtZO+nb2Uy3jLdqO9eOL4z9OXk3TCRBFwSdWrwsZXbzy3tC >> 5TmYlHvLSpfjiUxpP9JcO5E2VwFvB80pKkjPuUhwFVngh0HHsTA1IinUt52ZW1QP >> wTdgKFHw3QL9zcfEXljVa3Ih9ssqrl5Eoab8vE2yr3p3QHR7caRLY1gFyKKIRxVH >> YQangx6D33JcxyAcDNhYqavyt02lHxscqyZo6I4XUvE/aZVmSVTlm2zg7xdR7aCZ >> 0PlDwzpMD6Zk2QO/5qPPPos/5VETT0ompFK62go/hY2uB4cm+yZw3FFxR+Kknog= >> =rtTH >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >