summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/0d/d7b72a7520904e995e8e1a0bbdb04ec06130b5
blob: 7a0fa436c8b05ba0fbb7a7f85fd3c63b4b99b188 (plain)
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
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87E8F11A6
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu,  3 Sep 2015 19:17:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f176.google.com (mail-ig0-f176.google.com
	[209.85.213.176])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31A3421F
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu,  3 Sep 2015 19:17:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igbkq10 with SMTP id kq10so535152igb.0
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 03 Sep 2015 12:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=Zjqf4Yi41oQgHBr56vvL4Pw5jIfpcUb+OqEPnym6BzA=;
	b=ejXfTjnjktMCu9WDOQaGf5aGxc2L23hTHH/Fu9C/CSspa5BimegbC+qNwTaNCOlZH/
	9mWhK1jy0xE5B08sCp0t2S+xPh2eT3GLCufn2mzOp2ghKuE0aB6kESNOL4ojc4CZkS+Y
	uVMKXxghBMPkcaPW6crJnT5AI3uhYxXskViQhPmtKSMo4zwW7MneS/UJNY8Z/VBuMTRs
	QHaZDQpxrqiDYZ+Yi2l7Fc2tPHuka7jObnlQgLRKAvrY9vv5DIE9SQFrk+VEDA/NP00C
	1LuHht1noAKPZrC1YYnylHW/M/ve560TC1uVz/g+eKgTmkrZ7Ag50A8Wp2LrbUw5QNLY
	qSiA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.147.5 with SMTP id tg5mr16230667igb.62.1441307827655;
	Thu, 03 Sep 2015 12:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.19.30 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 12:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDof7evMp0HM1m1NdBPkR02kAcWp9Y3U=T1AvJxLCgNz6Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADm_Wcb+5Xo3HS-FNUYtCapVpYfVvUS_fxpU0Q=TZHJW1=iAFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgQOi0amBnPK8Ac3iGDN9CP-mLW6o0ncYdSAOAaqSboejg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_WcYS-zbNFQJ5EPqqkQ5NhgoQNQAgs-SaF_ZZr0QCNFA3_w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_WcYwErO1Av_DkMecATQEMFKL7TNZc1Nbs88k-yEKN2vbsQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgS=sBYscxa+xzi6d2h61HxgeRfdaTj55ospc3oKYgKOXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDof7evMp0HM1m1NdBPkR02kAcWp9Y3U=T1AvJxLCgNz6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 19:17:07 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgR6KzaHHoVuy_NMQhp4dxvz4GRCVUCKHi_wu8qjMLe_Jg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
	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 development mailing list <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] block size - pay with difficulty
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: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 19:17:08 -0000

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:
> Greg, I believe Jeff is focusing on BtcDrak's proposal (
> https://gist.github.com/btcdrak/1c3a323100a912b605b5 ) where the
> increased nBits are used to vote for the block size to raise
> permanently ( or until it gets voted down).
> His arguments don't seem to apply to your original proposal (where the
> size is only increased for that block).

Ah, that would clarify things for me me.

Please everyone try to speak specifically enough to catch details like that=
.