diff options
| author | Hector Chu <hectorchu@gmail.com> | 2015-08-01 01:05:43 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-08-01 00:06:05 +0000 |
| commit | 2d8fac44296bd563cccad6e3a7f8b4e5f7e1379c (patch) | |
| tree | 317d875af0e8583c8f554a3b1d1b34fc416cca6a | |
| parent | 84a39c05edcef1b903cddf42866973392fbb2b4b (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-2d8fac44296bd563cccad6e3a7f8b4e5f7e1379c.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-2d8fac44296bd563cccad6e3a7f8b4e5f7e1379c.zip | |
[bitcoin-dev] Block size hard fork
| -rw-r--r-- | dc/d9c180655ef4c6ffd69b96406c5a0b0460d4ab | 97 |
1 files changed, 97 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/dc/d9c180655ef4c6ffd69b96406c5a0b0460d4ab b/dc/d9c180655ef4c6ffd69b96406c5a0b0460d4ab new file mode 100644 index 000000000..2d3b4f61e --- /dev/null +++ b/dc/d9c180655ef4c6ffd69b96406c5a0b0460d4ab @@ -0,0 +1,97 @@ +Return-Path: <hectorchu@gmail.com> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E294487 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sat, 1 Aug 2015 00:06:05 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-lb0-f174.google.com (mail-lb0-f174.google.com + [209.85.217.174]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E18537C + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sat, 1 Aug 2015 00:06:04 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by lbqc9 with SMTP id c9so29228823lbq.1 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:06:03 -0700 (PDT) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; + h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; + bh=sIP42xs9HK0GBHL6L7B3RYXJY+dMLA3lRSdZjNuUJis=; + b=eny5AqtpOys9ASkKGMqywWHFLLrZB8W+iAK1IwgSii/inMUBgUK7e1SXtsCKUm5qOD + XqeFHynuuOJuYIuWIInjRkWq4nwp0jPXKX+CJlXtEN7SZmc7Kf0aRl08QyjPTcPVFDtG + yHMsk6WRT6asi9IwkU385Vjih4LfFr9FwMeRufIQpk43dhYl3Vzs6iboO/kkVBLu97aK + vcJaZCpD/1Ei6te5bCyIF2UmkcqEL8SnBrn/0gGxAkPdeNxzjao5QdW1VDZyIl8CE0X9 + 8+rZKwsvoCDOTGXrjEuL+BXa2aW2eWg08F1IqbXuUMoN3sx1HfhLwO77a9lhco0KEuO1 + bWGQ== +X-Received: by 10.152.45.9 with SMTP id i9mr5905521lam.105.1438387562828; Fri, + 31 Jul 2015 17:06:02 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Received: by 10.25.21.94 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:05:43 -0700 (PDT) +From: Hector Chu <hectorchu@gmail.com> +Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 01:05:43 +0100 +Message-ID: <CAAO2FKFQjjftgEgZoDAUrMxa86KTbNzAqg+xgExTRPpGxedwRw@mail.gmail.com> +To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2750abb5a3a051c34b397 +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, + DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW + autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Block size hard fork +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2015 00:06:05 -0000 + +--001a11c2750abb5a3a051c34b397 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 + +I haven't seen much discussion on this list of what will happen when the +blockchain forks due to larger blocks. I think the debate surrounding this +issue is a storm in a teacup, because transactions on the smaller chain can +and will appear on the bigger chain also. There is nothing tying +transactions to the blocks they appear in. + +Miners will migrate to the bigger chain in search of higher profits due to +higher volume of fees. They can also collect the higher fees of the smaller +chain by including into the bigger chain as many as possible of the +transactions from the smaller chain. + +To stop this from happening the smaller chain would somehow need to change +the serialized format of their transactions so the signatures would no +longer be valid across chains. + +Incidentally I read somewhere that the losing chain would have their coins +sold down. Trying to sell the smaller chain's coins in the short term at +least is not advisable, as those transactions will appear on the bigger +chain too. + +--001a11c2750abb5a3a051c34b397 +Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"ltr">I haven't seen much discussion on this list of what wi= +ll happen when the blockchain forks due to larger blocks. I think the debat= +e surrounding this issue is a storm in a teacup, because transactions on th= +e smaller chain can and will appear on the bigger chain also. There is noth= +ing tying transactions to the blocks they appear in.<div><br></div><div>Min= +ers will migrate to the bigger chain in search of higher profits due to hig= +her volume of fees. They can also collect the higher fees of the smaller ch= +ain by including into the bigger chain as many as possible of the transacti= +ons from the smaller chain.</div><div><br></div><div>To stop this from happ= +ening the smaller chain would somehow need to change the serialized format = +of their transactions so the signatures would no longer be valid across cha= +ins.</div><div><br></div><div>Incidentally I read somewhere that the losing= + chain would have their coins sold down. Trying to sell the smaller chain&#= +39;s coins in the short term at least is not advisable, as those transactio= +ns will appear on the bigger chain too.</div></div> + +--001a11c2750abb5a3a051c34b397-- + |