summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/78/52f4dff772c32f7f408d20c070860c80da98cd
blob: 4a92ec517334e3a928d1e40d9a8a0ed0c7371b12 (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
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1R3w40-0000Kp-9v
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:28:08 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.161.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.161.47; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-fx0-f47.google.com; 
Received: from mail-fx0-f47.google.com ([209.85.161.47])
	by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1R3w3z-0005m8-Hq
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:28:08 +0000
Received: by fxi1 with SMTP id 1so2891571fxi.34
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 14 Sep 2011 13:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.13.208 with SMTP id d16mr337326faa.141.1316032081220; Wed,
	14 Sep 2011 13:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.152.25.105 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 13:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQOuNKWD09arSzqKxYFRv95q4xyq0Wz4ZkeKdKSWJ-=kA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T2XLj4gZVPYodteaVCm0chR1n4WLUoSqB6+NnmWCDqHKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E6F83C3.9020108@jerviss.org>
	<CABsx9T0JvnOaBy+irHtnN1zMWP8FiDTn=kn-01ky+V2MW1suTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAB=c7TpFE_28BNpkW27kKK41w8QdaMKJ96=6H=xqonVDdTWUkA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgQOuNKWD09arSzqKxYFRv95q4xyq0Wz4ZkeKdKSWJ-=kA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:28:01 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T2Ot2iErtr48X_QmcZFQOXGH_jWNPrG=Ck6uQXhVXS=QA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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
	(gavinandresen[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
	0.0 T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL To: misformatted and free email service
	-0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1R3w3z-0005m8-Hq
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Difficulty adjustment / time issues
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, 14 Sep 2011 20:28:08 -0000

> Perhaps better thing to do is to also delay the _forwarding_ of these
> blocks _and_ blocks that extend them, until extended one more time.

Excellent idea, that gets the incentives right.

RE: fixing the root cause with a forking change:

What do other people think?  I think it is too high risk for too
little benefit and shouldn't be done until we have a really compelling
reason to introduce a forking change.

The first really compelling reason I can think of is removing the
MAX_BLOCK_SIZE limit (but does something clever to prevent the
rogue-miner-sends-you-a-valid-10Terabyte-block attack).

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen