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
|
Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E21B36C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 2 Jan 2017 20:34:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx-out01.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1387101
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 2 Jan 2017 20:34:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101])
by mx-out01.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4B0660201;
Mon, 2 Jan 2017 21:34:43 +0100 (CET)
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: "t. khan" <teekhan42@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2017 21:35:40 +0100
Message-ID: <1944321.hguq3JoYe1@cherry>
In-Reply-To: <CAGCNRJp71NCxQ3jk4hu-kXF94RiqfeD=AVnxR37TrJ7bDG310w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGCNRJoN7u3yvzitH2KSmVty-p0tX9jxWLHPb8uO5CPZmxmoRg@mail.gmail.com>
<2273244.fZU5ULDz4l@cherry>
<CAGCNRJp71NCxQ3jk4hu-kXF94RiqfeD=AVnxR37TrJ7bDG310w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 Jan 2017 21:06:59 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - 'Block75' - New algorithm
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Mon, 02 Jan 2017 20:34:48 -0000
On Monday, 2 January 2017 14:32:24 CET t. khan wrote:
> Math should decide the max block size, not humans (miners in this
> case). The goal of Block75 is to manage the max block size without any
> human intervention.
If the input of your math is completely free and human created, how does it
follow that it was math that created it ?
Why do you want it math created anyway?
> A maximum block size is necessary to prevent a single nefarious miner from
> creating a ridiculously large block which would break the network.
A maximum is needed, yes. But does it have to be part of the protocol?
A simple policy which is set by node operators (reject block if greater than
X bytes) will solve this just fine, no?
--
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
|
