Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YyLBC-00032p-DA for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 29 May 2015 14:22:34 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.192.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.42; envelope-from=tier.nolan@gmail.com; helo=mail-qg0-f42.google.com; Received: from mail-qg0-f42.google.com ([209.85.192.42]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YyLBB-0001xT-Fg for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 29 May 2015 14:22:34 +0000 Received: by qgf2 with SMTP id 2so29727650qgf.3 for ; Fri, 29 May 2015 07:22:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.26.165 with SMTP id l37mr15886345qkh.88.1432909347833; Fri, 29 May 2015 07:22:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.85.241 with HTTP; Fri, 29 May 2015 07:22:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator> Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 15:22:27 +0100 Message-ID: From: Tier Nolan Cc: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1142dc1aac67250517393404 X-Spam-Score: 3.3 (+++) 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 (tier.nolan[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.2 MISSING_HEADERS Missing To: header 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 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 2.7 MALFORMED_FREEMAIL Bad headers on message from free email service -0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1YyLBB-0001xT-Fg 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 14:22:34 -0000 --001a1142dc1aac67250517393404 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Tier Nolan wrote: > > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Gavin Andresen > wrote: > >> But if there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigger >> blocks now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big miners to >> do the same, and use the soft-fork block version voting mechanism to >> (hopefully) get a majority and then a super-majority willing to produce >> bigger blocks. The purpose of that process is to prove to any doubters that >> they'd better start supporting bigger blocks or they'll be left behind, and >> to give them a chance to upgrade before that happens. >> > > How do you define that the movement is successful? > Sorry again, I keep auto-sending from gmail when trying to delete. In theory, using the "nuclear option", the block size can be increased via soft fork. Version 4 blocks would contain the hash of the a valid extended block in the coinbase. <32 byte extended hash> To send coins to the auxiliary block, you send them to some template. OP_P2SH_EXTENDED OP_TRUE This transaction can be spent by anyone (under the current rules). The soft fork would lock the transaction output unless it transferred money from the extended block. To unlock the transaction output, you need to include the txid of transaction(s) in the extended block and signature(s) in the scriptSig. The transaction output can be spent in the extended block using P2SH against the scriptPubKey hash. This means that people can choose to move their money to the extended block. It might have lower security than leaving it in the root chain. The extended chain could use the updated script language too. This is obviously more complex than just increasing the size though, but it could be a fallback option if no consensus is reached. It has the advantage of giving people a choice. They can move their money to the extended chain or not, as they wish. --001a1142dc1aac67250517393404 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On F= ri, May 29, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com> wrote:



This means that people can choose to move their money to the extended blo= ck.=C2=A0 It might have lower security than leaving it in the root chain.
--001a1142dc1aac67250517393404--