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
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6476D84
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:40:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-la0-f54.google.com (mail-la0-f54.google.com
[209.85.215.54])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93BC2E5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:40:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by lalv9 with SMTP id v9so60767755lal.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 22 Aug 2015 23:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=/gdfZeDLGgUNzRYxyLXdUHeScXJgqcXt0pQepwJMAvs=;
b=jDhNbfprW3/SZ/Ek0Bs+XhNgnpwpU71SzmXnTiQGU3uDeHwzadj2fameJilfMAaTuM
DTf/XHYRIgj68BHR0IOOwIzNcskidhOVnbbS2Vp/Z/kjOMKHVK2vLjEJZoXK4TydGf8X
QUSBTBDbyINSFC2XbPm0U/2FvZCQ8MnAgkgv9D+rP5zC3A9lZALkVI1aOearmv5AS/Zn
LVPUdVLUNee9slTOrCmJQ644+B6NoX34mvJPBb4T97EFOvMnok8G5qucSXlSE+G8FDor
xnRCs/fdiYTWjpaTJWDgEApIzlaRm/mOlDalJLv8aMegUAYJXmDG2LxVBevfbAf1dnBS
YhcA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkH9OfJHYYJfnrrTU3rDMeB7IkUUkl0hcY9UMuzecgUJJvB4qVqBqofMBw0Y1YWPhPKH5/5
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.136.201 with SMTP id qc9mr14904468lbb.94.1440312020442;
Sat, 22 Aug 2015 23:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 23:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALNn0ZZ5gY6R7gzpLpbNnFecAz35ZqaLx_RNPxx=SoJTAdHDXg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALNn0ZZ5gY6R7gzpLpbNnFecAz35ZqaLx_RNPxx=SoJTAdHDXg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:40:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDp2TONJxSVSdS7bq-WAXNVfQGZiKyhx2haerA3WkoaNxQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Bdimych Bdimych <bdimych@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size possible solution - to set minimum size
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: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:40:23 -0000
A minimum block size does nothing to prevent the problems that come
from schism hardforks.
But also a minimum block size can be trivially cheated as recently
explained on this list:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010317.html
"[...] miners can just pay to themselves to follow the minimum size
block rule without risking anything.
As long as they have a single matured satoshi they can just pay to
themselves with it as many times as they need in the same block."
It is good to search previous post before proposing or asking
something (it could have been proposed/asked earlier):
http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 1:30 AM, Bdimych Bdimych via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> As I understand the main problem of the fork Core<->XT is possibility
> of double spending:
> -I run XT and spend my coins
> -it is written in 8mb block
> -Core does not accept this block
> -I run Core and spend my coins again
> -it is written in 1mb block
> -but XT accepts this block too
> so
> -in the XT blockchain both blocks [8] and [1] contain my coins
>
> I thought that possible solution can be to set minimum block size
> i.e.
> 2016: 1mb <= blockSize < 2mb
> 2017: 2mb <= blockSize < 3mb
> 2018: 3mb <= blockSize < 4mb
> etc
>
> Free space could be filled with zeroes and compressed.
>
> That's all, just an idea.
>
>
> With Best Regards
> Dmitry Bolshakov
> bdimych@gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
