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
|
Return-Path: <filipe@ktorn.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46CDDAAC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 24 Jun 2015 03:02:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from laozi.macaubase.com (z83l79.static.ctm.net [202.175.83.79])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C499A166
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 24 Jun 2015 03:02:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by laozi.macaubase.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 906997C41EC;
Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:02:38 +0800 (HKT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at macaubase.com
Received: from laozi.macaubase.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (laozi.macaubase.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id Ad05tv8Dp7tX; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:02:38 +0800 (HKT)
Received: from dmac13-2.local (nz129l231.bb122100.ctm.net [122.100.129.231])
by laozi.macaubase.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2EDFE7C41EB;
Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:02:38 +0800 (HKT)
Message-ID: <558A1DCD.8030702@ktorn.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:02:37 +0800
From: Filipe Farinha <filipe@ktorn.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
References: <558A0FCB.2040908@ktorn.com>
<CAOG=w-vj8LQjun0u03nWRz1RV7NMw=ALdQkbiQcrOb=cpfWZZg@mail.gmail.com>
<558A14C3.2040908@ktorn.com>
<20150624024344.GA3647@savin.petertodd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150624024344.GA3647@savin.petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 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] Mempool size consensus + dynamic block size
re-targetting
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: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 03:02:40 -0000
On 24/06/2015 10:43, Peter Todd wrote:
> It might help you to answer the following: If your mempool consensus
> idea worked, could you use it to replace proof-of-work? Why? Why not?
I shouldn't have to answer that, but the answer is clearly no.
Please consider this argument when evaluating the pros and cons of BIP 100.
Filipe Farinha
|
