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
|
Return-Path: <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1ACAF11
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:39:14 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com (mail-wi0-f178.google.com
[209.85.212.178])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2086B239
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:39:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wiae7 with SMTP id e7so10438829wia.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=OxyXq6n4h4/6Sf1JsLqboEOrzpErC7vYwD6VOf7sCnA=;
b=cAHCrjkDJqT80s4S+X1R8TPUJq3LpFIo5ynadF+UeYm/4o+n1gG95mVDT6C+6REciN
SZIRfDUKD8bMb7AWoJNeeVjGbBDFo7Qz/YR78CfnomhAcpnEP5yJII5n3ypuq0bkeNmN
2dqIR2E3EBSL1pJUo8MYNFIG8bd79i+IOfXMxsRc0eYA/M0F4sfWAKUPW1I9vtvnJ8e/
Etq5Gdh91xfjKGR/ltHS1AntBPcKAvPHIiYgrHIvgFgy0HIM+KqEoTigrYG0ejWd0b5y
P7/QSyK4lSGgACGG3N+WJRHK4Ce82r+wgfvLgB+0sVg/hBTtQtuwRXCjIUOILPe2ZPtU
3qDg==
X-Received: by 10.194.121.131 with SMTP id lk3mr13317607wjb.77.1440805152887;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.211.16 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <A30CC2E3-A769-445C-95A2-35B963EFC283@gmail.com>
References: <CADJgMzvWKA79NHE2uFy1wb-zL3sjC5huspQcaDczxTqD_7gXOg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADr=VrQR6rYK4sJJsDpUdFJaWZqhv=AkMqcG64EhsOCg1tDxVg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADJgMzvkBDBD9_=53kaD_6_jWH=vbWOnNwOKK5GOz8Du-F08dQ@mail.gmail.com>
<2081355.cHxjDEpgpW@crushinator>
<A30CC2E3-A769-445C-95A2-35B963EFC283@gmail.com>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 00:38:53 +0100
Message-ID: <CADJgMzvaLdZhtm7g=C-XzCBRKtG8cof3geZjCsq=82cq6GNUPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gavin <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus based block size retargeting algorithm
(draft)
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:39:14 -0000
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Gavin <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
> With this proposal, how much would it cost a miner to include an 'extra' 500-byte transaction if the average block size is 900K and it costs the miner 20BTC in electricity/capital/etc to mine a block?
>
> If my understanding of the proposal is correct, it is:
>
> 500/900000 * 20 = 0.11111 BTC
Typo, 0.01111
> ... Or $2.50 at today's exchange rate.
>
> That seems excessive.
I am not sure how it is relevant to this proposal because miners are
not paying to include an extra transaction. The BIP details how miners
can vote for a larger block size limit during a window of 2016 blocks.
The block size limit does not increase during this phase. The block
size limit is adjusted at the end of the sample window and the new
size is valid until the next retargetting.
If this wasn't clear, please let me know if I need to clarify any
specifics in the wording of the proposal.
|
