summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorMike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>2015-05-08 12:15:16 +0200
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2015-05-08 10:15:25 +0000
commitd8b52bfdd121bca668b778dda1032d3e35b9d4a6 (patch)
treea1b819a3ffbe8fcad796641f47a14f2da3fd6f77
parent1f8e73f6953e7fe297c9df458aa07bebc5cac6ca (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-d8b52bfdd121bca668b778dda1032d3e35b9d4a6.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-d8b52bfdd121bca668b778dda1032d3e35b9d4a6.zip
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step function
-rw-r--r--29/09780412e7c505a7844adfc7138f5079c90c19100
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&#39;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 &quot;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--
+
+