Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Gavin <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <64D181DA-05F6-4636-8F44-0FA63B758947@gmx.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 13:40:58 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B23B8F73-149B-45AB-AFE6-90828A658074@gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T2+dG0AE+MgKRAU97KhkHTU1MuxXuwHKv3BgpJswZ5vVg@mail.gmail.com>
	<64D181DA-05F6-4636-8F44-0FA63B758947@gmx.com>
To: Peter R <peter_r@gmx.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Weak block thoughts...
Precedence: list


> On Sep 23, 2015, at 12:28 PM, Peter R <peter_r@gmx.com> wrote:
>=20
> Hi Gavin,
>=20
> One thing that's not clear to me is whether it is even necessary--from the=
 perspective of the block size limit--to consider block propagation. =20

I didn't mention the block size limit; weak blocks are a good idea no matter=
 the limit.

As for miners paying for the work: lots of companies contributed to the Foun=
dation, and will contribute to the DCI. When there are big, stable, profitab=
le companies I think we'll see them task their developers to contribute code=
.

I think optimizing new block propagation is interesting and important, so I p=
lan on working on it.