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
|
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 <gronager@ceptacle.com>) id 1UFpzM-0006H1-TO
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:01:20 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from 2508ds5-oebr.1.fullrate.dk ([90.184.5.129]
helo=mail.ceptacle.com)
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1UFpzH-0007Xs-7f for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:01:20 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.ceptacle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4928E2B9638D;
Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:01:09 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ceptacle.com
Received: from mail.ceptacle.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (server.ceptacle.private [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
port 10024)
with ESMTP id R65SGHElpsNn; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:01:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.0.1.67] (2508ds5-oebr.1.fullrate.dk [90.184.5.129])
by mail.ceptacle.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8A5F12B96371;
Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:01:03 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Michael Gronager <gronager@ceptacle.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130313174838.GA22621@savin>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:01:02 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2FCCE0F7-66B0-4EBE-8448-C5F0F92A75FF@ceptacle.com>
References: <CABsx9T0xOpNpFG4bo7wjcMV8a_xtw_jrRx_fiSutX08yfP8P7Q@mail.gmail.com>
<20130313174838.GA22621@savin>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1UFpzH-0007Xs-7f
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Blocksize and off-chain transactions
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 Mar 2013 18:01:21 -0000
Please note that it was not 0.8 that had issues, but 0.7(and downwards).
I really think changing features in 0.8 aiming for a fluffy limit to =
avoid lock object errors on 0.7 is the wrong way to go, and it will =
never cover for a similar situations in the future.
Instead I would like to propose a setup for "considerate mining":
* Run pools either on newest or second newest version (up to you =
depending on which features you like as a pool admin) - say e.g. 0.8
* Connect to the rest of the bitcoin network _only_ through a node of =
the other version - say e.g. 0.7
This guarantees that no blocks will get into the network that will not =
be accepted by both 0.8 and 0.7. Those two versions together should add =
up to say >90%.
Once everyone else (90%) have upgraded to the newest, (0.8), drop the =
0.7 and start to introduce 0.9 instead.
/M
|
