Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E21B36C for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2017 20:34:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx-out01.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1387101 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2017 20:34:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com X-Spam-Score: -2.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101]) by mx-out01.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4B0660201; Mon, 2 Jan 2017 21:34:43 +0100 (CET) From: Tom Zander To: "t. khan" Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2017 21:35:40 +0100 Message-ID: <1944321.hguq3JoYe1@cherry> In-Reply-To: References: <2273244.fZU5ULDz4l@cherry> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 Jan 2017 21:06:59 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - 'Block75' - New algorithm X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2017 20:34:48 -0000 On Monday, 2 January 2017 14:32:24 CET t. khan wrote: > Math should decide the max block size, not humans (miners in this > case). The goal of Block75 is to manage the max block size without any > human intervention. If the input of your math is completely free and human created, how does it follow that it was math that created it ? Why do you want it math created anyway? > A maximum block size is necessary to prevent a single nefarious miner from > creating a ridiculously large block which would break the network. A maximum is needed, yes. But does it have to be part of the protocol? A simple policy which is set by node operators (reject block if greater than X bytes) will solve this just fine, no? -- Tom Zander Blog: https://zander.github.io Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel