Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C92F5B8C for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 02:43:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail148102.authsmtp.net (outmail148102.authsmtp.net [62.13.148.102]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A903F4 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 02:43:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c237.authsmtp.com (mail-c237.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.237]) by punt16.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5O2hm2s088268; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 03:43:48 +0100 (BST) Received: from savin.petertodd.org (75-119-251-161.dsl.teksavvy.com [75.119.251.161]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5O2hil2055637 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Jun 2015 03:43:47 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 22:43:44 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Filipe Farinha Message-ID: <20150624024344.GA3647@savin.petertodd.org> References: <558A0FCB.2040908@ktorn.com> <558A14C3.2040908@ktorn.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <558A14C3.2040908@ktorn.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Server-Quench: d689de68-1a1a-11e5-9f74-002590a135d3 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdAYUEkAaAgsB AmMbW1deVF57XWQ7 bA9PbARUfEhLXhtr VklWR1pVCwQmRRl+ BEZHDhtycgBAe3k+ bUBmWj4PWkxzIRN7 SlNVRGxXeGZhPWUC WRZfcx5UcAFPdx8U a1N6AHBDAzANdhEy HhM4ODE3eDlSNhEd ZwwINVUVRQ4QHywx DxsFGy4iG1YYXG1w ZxA3LFcZHU1ZOEE1 OlhpQlMKPn1aEAAb A0hXDyJFO1gHSEIA X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1024:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 75.119.251.161/587 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Mempool size consensus + dynamic block size re-targetting X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 02:43:57 -0000 --tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:24:03AM +0800, Filipe Farinha wrote: > On 24/06/2015 10:15, Mark Friedenbach wrote: > > > >Anyone could lie. > > > True. > What would be the incentive for the majority of transaction > broadcasting full-nodes to lie about the mempool size? It might help you to answer the following: If your mempool consensus idea worked, could you use it to replace proof-of-work? Why? Why not? --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000001256cc4d7dc7b68be627cbbf65f2b7827fb3e2cc41cf2517 --tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGrBAEBCACVBQJVihlbXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAxMjU2Y2M0ZDdkYzdiNjhiZTYyN2NiYmY2NWYyYjc4Mjdm YjNlMmNjNDFjZjI1MTcvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQJIFAPaXwkfvWeggAgF4C9WNc5Yjv/FJQT+801FMr 3Y+29z9tBDQN7khD1xEay1VkODUFNp18zeiy9xRmWxhogOhKxES6YymV7ids+aqL fMdkGoL1xyH9kqD0b+jrQU3kxkxa1NxIsoC87SmTPZJpaz+a6pdZTtL7AknV0mk9 1/35W1u6y36eAYNkDYl1anUjPbWf/cFImPHFJd6cLpjd8ueIa1qPB3mUog9LdD9u 1JtrYouR5trO5xuO30UpU2ZR5v1KmYse5dRpKNBG2Dpl26P71zloBDTCB8Gkgl8/ /911ebzfIqfMo6O5Kcdl5cQqnV7t8pkkHFF9LBpOt5wxA/dlv6epmu251sgQCA== =E2EX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT--