From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 16:25:58 +0100
Message-ID: <61681436.SvSR6Fsd9n@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <CAKzdR-r7or+DF64qxT=HLUvrtdkSQD0hpO43kUjfWS-397+yHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C10BF9D1-435D-47C9-B98C-9B118B5922A1@gmx.com>
	<CAKzdR-r7or+DF64qxT=HLUvrtdkSQD0hpO43kUjfWS-397+yHA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The Excessive-Block Gate: How a Bitcoin Unlimited
	Node Deals With Large Blocks
Precedence: list

On Thursday, 24 November 2016 22:39:05 CET Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-
dev wrote:
> Without a detailed analysis, unlimited block size seems a risky change to
> Bitcoin, to me.

What exactly do you think is a =E2=80=98change=E2=80=99 in bitcoin here?

The concept of proof-of-work is that the longer a chain, the higher=20
probability that that one will be extended for the simple reason that=20
another chain will have to show a higher amount of proof of work to =E2=80=
=98win=E2=80=99.

As far as I understand the document from Peter, there is no change there at=
=20
all. Only chains with more POW will win.
Or, to answer your example, miners will prefer to extend the chain with the=
=20
most POW.

The other fact stays the same as well, if you protect from reorgs by=20
expecting more confirmations. Nothing changes here either. The common-sense=
 6=20
confirmations for things like exchange-deposits keep having the same=20
security.

The basic idea that we have a 3 or 4 deep fork is a huge problem in Bitcoin=
=2E=20
It hasn=E2=80=99t happened for ages, and we like it that way. The miners li=
ke it=20
that way too. Its disruptive.
The is a problem that is not created by the =E2=80=98excessive block=E2=80=
=99 concept. It=20
does, however, provide a possible solution to this very far-fetched problem.

You should also realize that the policy of a miner is stored in the=20
coinbase.

That said, I=E2=80=99m sure there are improvements to be made to the policy=
 that BU=20
uses. But since this is a node-local policy, the consensus rules are not=20
affected by it.
=2D-=20
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel