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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <raphfrk@gmail.com>) id 1U5dmr-0006dJ-6V
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:58:17 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.49 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.49; envelope-from=raphfrk@gmail.com;
helo=mail-la0-f49.google.com;
Received: from mail-la0-f49.google.com ([209.85.215.49])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1U5dmq-0007mW-9H
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:58:17 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f49.google.com with SMTP id fs13so1234200lab.8
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 13 Feb 2013 06:58:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.114.42 with SMTP id jd10mr20467188lab.31.1360767489686;
Wed, 13 Feb 2013 06:58:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.64.7 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 06:58:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgTwjXCGFS-N8a8Ro80ahxXT01dCfqWYOqmwCkdRramaMg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN1xFdrX61HsRxsXxXW+i0FzjQkoNVRaDG-2yJNOfYUi5FnsPA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgTwjXCGFS-N8a8Ro80ahxXT01dCfqWYOqmwCkdRramaMg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:58:09 +0000
Message-ID: <CAN1xFdrGiWmn_EaBNMXXZAV38oeqP14YiMzMZQrkA+WL9QEMfA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Raph Frank <raphfrk@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(raphfrk[at]gmail.com)
-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: 1U5dmq-0007mW-9H
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Incorporating block validation rule
modifications into the block chain
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: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:58:17 -0000
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> You misunderstand what BIP_0034 is doing=97 it's not gauging consensus,
> it's making sure that the change is safe to enforce. This is a subtle
> but important difference.
Sounds reasonable.
The change in BIP-34 doesn't cause old client to reject the main chain.
The increase to the maximum block size would be rejected by old
clients, so is different.
Adding new opcodes (as long as they act like a NOP on success) also
doesn't cause a disagreement about what is the longest chain, in the
end. Miners might end up mining chains which are guaranteed to be
orphaned at worst.
> Bitcoin is not a democracy=97 it quite intentionally uses the consensus
> mechanism _only_ the one thing that nodes can not autonomously and
> interdependently validate (the ordering of transactions).
So, how is max block size to be decided then?
|
