Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46CDDAAC for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 03:02:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from laozi.macaubase.com (z83l79.static.ctm.net [202.175.83.79]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C499A166 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 03:02:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by laozi.macaubase.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 906997C41EC; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:02:38 +0800 (HKT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at macaubase.com Received: from laozi.macaubase.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (laozi.macaubase.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ad05tv8Dp7tX; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:02:38 +0800 (HKT) Received: from dmac13-2.local (nz129l231.bb122100.ctm.net [122.100.129.231]) by laozi.macaubase.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2EDFE7C41EB; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:02:38 +0800 (HKT) Message-ID: <558A1DCD.8030702@ktorn.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:02:37 +0800 From: Filipe Farinha User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Todd References: <558A0FCB.2040908@ktorn.com> <558A14C3.2040908@ktorn.com> <20150624024344.GA3647@savin.petertodd.org> In-Reply-To: <20150624024344.GA3647@savin.petertodd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 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 03:02:40 -0000 On 24/06/2015 10:43, Peter Todd wrote: > 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? I shouldn't have to answer that, but the answer is clearly no. Please consider this argument when evaluating the pros and cons of BIP 100. Filipe Farinha