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
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C22CEDC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 19 Dec 2015 18:20:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail148109.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail148109.authsmtp.co.uk
[62.13.148.109])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D98E5ED
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 19 Dec 2015 18:20:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232])
by punt23.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id tBJIKiaI058148;
Sat, 19 Dec 2015 18:20:44 GMT
Received: from muck (S0106e091f5827ad2.ok.shawcable.net [24.71.232.17])
(authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id tBJIKdAq046791
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Sat, 19 Dec 2015 18:20:42 GMT
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 10:20:38 -0800
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20151219182038.GA12893@muck>
References: <CAFzgq-xNZmWrdwCDv3twdsqSWk-FyMuLYJjZ_bA42_5Po0mgEg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAFzgq-xNZmWrdwCDv3twdsqSWk-FyMuLYJjZ_bA42_5Po0mgEg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Server-Quench: 3703f652-a67d-11e5-829e-00151795d556
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdwsUHFAXAgsB AmMbWlxeUl17XWE7 aQ5PagRDYElMQQRt
T01BRU1TWkEae2V6 Um9fUh10cAxHNnp4 bE4sXXdbXxJ8cERg
E0hTQXAHZDJldWgd WRVFdwNVdQJNdxoR b1V5GhFYa3VsNCMk
FAgyOXU9MCtqYBhV T0kMK1kITE8QE3Y7 SVgHFCVnF0kCTCZ7
NB00JxYHHEEMNkl6 O1ZDEV4VLxIIDwxY Ek0FCj4RLV0GTClj
DQ5bUk4CWDxbWjtR CxFgJREACDhVUSkQ GEpARnkA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1037:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 24.71.232.17/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The increase of max block size should be
determined by block height instead of block time
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: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 18:20:46 -0000
--nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 03:17:03AM +0800, Chun Wang via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> In many BIPs we have seen, include the latest BIP202, it is the block
> time that determine the max block size. From from pool's point of
> view, it cannot issue a job with a fixed ntime due to the existence of
> ntime roll. It is hard to issue a job with the max block size unknown.
> For developers, it is also easier to implement if max block size is a
> function of block height instead of time. Block height is also much
> more simple and elegant than time.
If size is calculated from the median time past, which is fixed for a
given block and has no dependency on the block header's nTime field,
does that solve your problem?
By "median time past" I mean the median time for the previous block.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000188b6321da7feae60d74c7b0becbdab3b1a0bd57f10947d
--nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=XpBe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j--
|
