diff options
author | Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> | 2015-05-08 12:15:16 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-05-08 10:15:25 +0000 |
commit | d8b52bfdd121bca668b778dda1032d3e35b9d4a6 (patch) | |
tree | a1b819a3ffbe8fcad796641f47a14f2da3fd6f77 | |
parent | 1f8e73f6953e7fe297c9df458aa07bebc5cac6ca (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-d8b52bfdd121bca668b778dda1032d3e35b9d4a6.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-d8b52bfdd121bca668b778dda1032d3e35b9d4a6.zip |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step function
-rw-r--r-- | 29/09780412e7c505a7844adfc7138f5079c90c19 | 100 |
1 files changed, 100 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/29/09780412e7c505a7844adfc7138f5079c90c19 b/29/09780412e7c505a7844adfc7138f5079c90c19 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..26402fb60 --- /dev/null +++ b/29/09780412e7c505a7844adfc7138f5079c90c19 @@ -0,0 +1,100 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1YqfJV-000259-2K + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Fri, 08 May 2015 10:15:25 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com + designates 74.125.82.46 as permitted sender) + client-ip=74.125.82.46; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; + helo=mail-wg0-f46.google.com; +Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]) + by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) + (Exim 4.76) id 1YqfJS-0004XU-W4 + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Fri, 08 May 2015 10:15:25 +0000 +Received: by wgiu9 with SMTP id u9so68030500wgi.3 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Fri, 08 May 2015 03:15:17 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.180.105.193 with SMTP id go1mr4715471wib.92.1431080116921; + Fri, 08 May 2015 03:15:16 -0700 (PDT) +Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com +Received: by 10.194.143.9 with HTTP; Fri, 8 May 2015 03:15:16 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator> +References: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator> +Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 12:15:16 +0200 +X-Google-Sender-Auth: gd6tTkJkDZQcDwQjF5NZh59ryz8 +Message-ID: <CANEZrP3jXzj7Z2nr40YRLFwk3c4eH1UQJ+NnN+ZFDOieZSAUeg@mail.gmail.com> +From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> +To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0418280003b11605158f4ee5 +X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) +X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. + See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. + -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for + sender-domain + 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider + (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) + -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record + 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message + 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, + not necessarily valid + -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature +X-Headers-End: 1YqfJS-0004XU-W4 +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step + function +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 +Precedence: list +List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 10:15:25 -0000 + +--f46d0418280003b11605158f4ee5 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 + +There are certainly arguments to be made for and against all of these +proposals. + +The fixed 20mb cap isn't actually my proposal at all, it is from Gavin. I +am supporting it because anything is better than nothing. Gavin originally +proposed the block size be a function of time. That got dropped, I suppose +to make the process of getting consensus easier. It is "the simplest thing +that can possibly work". + +I would like to see the process of chain forking becoming less traumatic. I +remember Gavin, Jeff and I once considered (on stage at a conference??) +that maybe there should be a scheduled fork every year, so people know when +to expect them. + +If everything goes well, I see no reason why 20mb would be the limit +forever. + +--f46d0418280003b11605158f4ee5 +Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"ltr">There are certainly arguments to be made for and against a= +ll of these proposals.<div><br></div><div>The fixed 20mb cap isn't actu= +ally my proposal at all, it is from Gavin. I am supporting it because anyth= +ing is better than nothing. Gavin originally proposed the block size be a f= +unction of time. That got dropped, I suppose to make the process of getting= + consensus easier. It is "the simplest thing that can possibly work&qu= +ot;.</div><div><br></div><div>I would like to see the process of chain fork= +ing becoming less traumatic. I remember Gavin, Jeff and I once considered (= +on stage at a conference??) that maybe there should be a scheduled fork eve= +ry year, so people know when to expect them.</div><div><br></div><div>If ev= +erything goes well, I see no reason why 20mb would be the limit forever.</d= +iv></div> + +--f46d0418280003b11605158f4ee5-- + + |