1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jgarzik@bitpay.com>) id 1XjzEl-0001m1-U2
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 30 Oct 2014 23:34:39 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
designates 209.85.223.171 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.171; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f171.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com ([209.85.223.171])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XjzEk-0004kF-LA
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 30 Oct 2014 23:34:39 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id x19so211447ier.16
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
bh=Dlt5ky1+SE22G4vMXyB7J2qU9xtZb1xRoDosbST7zsc=;
b=b2+JguI8dT55v09qgV7LuRKYQV2v7js8pjAqB7LGY8XekIys5gMws7kYnr/si3BFKR
225wxy6OH7tPeNzpjg5bGnMv54lU23CgMkZrtjrRONRQZmSzC7fOSwHP+DpWUYAyXycS
N44RsWijvpK39PDkCnKMdm/VD4kOQ3u/+TJ1UypZ4peoH5eh96YIPVf2I3ztyXxCQvWi
L7a/y4Pec0T0gUeX7NJejuzdE8si7mafD1rdEZDaOqQvBuyukp9Sm8zn04pHKMqad4xi
qZFb7JL4UQH/VwYYaXgVXXuUQwWu0Nq/nCpa1PpWCIEVAf0DzPwup3ePn9H32rjiDReS
NvJg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmj1NpZ5hKLpr0nzGJDgQzZdXTlG2PcsSQy6T9CRzlPUk8mv/47Y+QK44EKbKL4DK4R7nVB
X-Received: by 10.43.148.74 with SMTP id kf10mr20961339icc.9.1414712073139;
Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.156.193 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <874mul9met.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
References: <874mul9met.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:34:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0OKAq+AdJQF_1Mf3sje-266x_fUm6C+3x9R85agmZ5B9A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-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
X-Headers-End: 1XjzEk-0004kF-LA
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing regularity of block times?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 23:34:40 -0000
That's what we do for testnet today: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Testnet
If no block is found for 20 minutes, one minimum-diff block may be mined.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been toying with an algorithm to place a ceiling on
> confirmation latency by allowing weaker blocks after a certain time.
> Hope this isn't noise, but thought someone must have considered this
> before, or know of flaws in the scheme?
>
> Gory details:
> http://rustyrussell.github.io/pettycoin/2014/10/30/More-Regular-Block-Times.html
>
> Thanks,
> Rusty.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
|
