Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 828DF279 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2017 19:00:20 +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 6CCF2130 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2017 19:00:19 +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 2F2C26031C; Mon, 2 Jan 2017 20:00:16 +0100 (CET) From: Tom Zander To: "t. khan" , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2017 20:01:11 +0100 Message-ID: <2273244.fZU5ULDz4l@cherry> In-Reply-To: References: 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 19:12:26 +0000 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 19:00:20 -0000 On Monday, 2 January 2017 13:04:37 CET t. khan via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Thoughts? This proposal doesn't change the block size, it only changes the maximum block size. Which is expected, nothing bad there. The direct consequence of this, though is that the miners set the maximum block size. Because they decide on the actual created block size. This leads me to the simple question why we can't just give the miners full control of the maximum block size directly? The fact of the matter is that miners have for the full history of Bitcoin been able to set the block size, until they hit the 1MB limit. And your proposal keeps that property, but why have a maximum in the protocol? -- Tom Zander Blog: https://zander.github.io Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel