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
|
Return-Path: <michabailey@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A9D04D3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:57:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f182.google.com (mail-io0-f182.google.com
[209.85.223.182])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1940110A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:57:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iodv127 with SMTP id v127so169940100iod.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 Aug 2015 04:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=YgQsYAGvcueCbS8pJFPe+vLI3+hDbjkIO4TyLYW60oA=;
b=n/57x++w/TJc2e6iWQ2+q4uMl9I2y4mgygPInyllrBYyuJcTI+I89iEDtlKu6AhlgD
7JDzPmCo/73o/gW1Sgs6kDGun2uDvdKUNgCwRLRF8gDiL+7N6L2HBjwNhfkcZOqsDdpy
Z7hvx88TVlmpIQveBa2b/ui0vawfRsbUSK9/rwzOrsEts8f+5Av//3XrYq7V1NnHjB81
TTvF9kCR3CYAqIg6Kd5Q9I8XKaK2tiHPJlo8iy7Gx5uKW0Iy7rVukjqOlKy6lEBiR8LY
tBgXB5Q7STsMewo9WQbFPIdXc6dJUWOWRiujxAKkmeBJrCsWkylG9Kz0pssdqeD79Mnw
qQYw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.46.86 with SMTP id i83mr6323406ioo.121.1439899031543;
Tue, 18 Aug 2015 04:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.79.37.130 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 04:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <d17549688c0c747b2077c1f6f96b6445@xbt.hk>
References: <d17549688c0c747b2077c1f6f96b6445@xbt.hk>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:57:11 +0300
Message-ID: <CAAmoQf3OqvHqaGu4UW3ckkhYG91RDHynq+o53HEWa=HccviAiQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Micha Bailey <michabailey@gmail.com>
To: "jl2012@xbt.hk" <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1137949e49aa93051d949eb2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an
experimental hardfork?
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: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:57:12 -0000
--001a1137949e49aa93051d949eb2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
A smaller block size would make this a soft fork, as unupgraded nodes would
consider the new blocks valid. It would only make things that were allowed
forbidden, which is the definition of a soft fork. For a hard fork, you
need to allow something that was previously invalid.
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> s = 1.5MB. As the 1MB cap was set 5 years ago, there is no doubt that all
> types of technology has since improved by >50%. I don't mind making it a
> bit smaller but in that case not much valuable data could be gathered and
> the second objective of this experiment may not be archived.
>
--001a1137949e49aa93051d949eb2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
A smaller block size would make this a soft fork, as unupgraded nodes would=
consider the new blocks valid. It would only make things that were allowed=
forbidden, which is the definition of a soft fork. For a hard fork, you ne=
ed to allow something that was previously invalid.<br><br>On Tuesday, Augus=
t 18, 2015, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<b=
lockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px =
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
s =3D 1.5MB. As the 1MB cap was set 5 years ago, there is no doubt that all=
types of technology has since improved by >50%. I don't mind making=
it a bit smaller but in that case not much valuable data could be gathered=
and the second objective of this experiment may not be archived.<br>
</blockquote>
--001a1137949e49aa93051d949eb2--
|
