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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <luke@dashjr.org>) id 1QwGs7-0003oo-QP
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:04:11 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1QwGs7-0002FR-5K for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:04:11 +0000
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (fl-184-4-160-40.dhcp.embarqhsd.net
[184.4.160.40]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E20356072F;
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:03:59 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:03:45 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.39-gentoo; KDE/4.6.4; x86_64; ; )
References: <CABsx9T1uw43JuvhEmJP0KCyojsDi1r7v6BaLBHz7wWazduE5iw@mail.gmail.com>
<201108241215.36847.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAAS2fgQspsXy1Vw=fNr1FvsDRkEbP6dEcFLgUpK9DrBKXyiWNg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQspsXy1Vw=fNr1FvsDRkEbP6dEcFLgUpK9DrBKXyiWNg@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: CE5A D56A 36CC 69FA E7D2 3558 665F C11D D53E 9583
X-PGP-Key-ID: 665FC11DD53E9583
X-PGP-Keyserver: x-hkp://subkeys.pgp.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201108241303.47660.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain -0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1QwGs7-0002FR-5K
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New standard transaction types: time to
schedule a blockchain split?
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, 24 Aug 2011 17:04:11 -0000
On Wednesday, August 24, 2011 12:46:42 PM Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> > - Replace hard limits (like 1 MB maximum block size) with something that
> > can dynamically adapt with the times. Maybe based on difficulty so it
> > can't be gamed?
>
> Too early for that.
Dynamically adapting would be by design never too early/late. Changing from a
fixed 1 MB will fork the block chain, which should be a minimized event.
> > - Adjust difficulty every block, without limits, based on a N-block
> > sliding window. I think this would solve the issue when the hashrate
> > drops overnight, but maybe also add a block time limit, or perhaps
> > include the "current block" in the difficulty calculation?
>
> The quantized scheme limits the amount of difficulty skew miners can
> create by lying about timestamps to about a half a percent. A rolling
> window with the same time constant would allow much more skew.
Depends on the implementation, I'd think.
> > Replacing the "Satoshi" 64-bit integers with
> > "Satoshi" variable-size fractions (ie, infinite numerator + denominator)
>
> Increasing precision I would agree with but, sadly, causing people to
> need more than 64 bit would create a lot of bugs.
>
> infinite numerator + denominator is absolutely completely and totally
> batshit insane. For one, it has weird consequences that the same value
> can have redundant encodings.
So? You can already have redundant transactions simply by changing the order
of inputs/outputs. A good client would minimize the transaction size by
reducing them, of course.
> Most importantly, it suffers factor inflation: If you spend inputs
> 1/977 1/983 1/991 1/997 the smallest denominator you can use for the
> output 948892238557.
I already tried to address this in my original mail. If I had those 4 coins, I
would use a denominator of 987 and discard the difference as fees.
|
