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
|
Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53986721
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 27 Nov 2016 07:46:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx-out03.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52B86CD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 27 Nov 2016 07:46:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx05.mykolab.com (mx05.mykolab.com [10.20.7.161])
by mx-out03.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A92E921E84
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 27 Nov 2016 08:46:45 +0100 (CET)
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 08:47:00 +0100
Message-ID: <14381847.eEjaEFYMVs@cherry>
In-Reply-To: <6AAD09CF-937E-4D35-B70A-CFDAB84A6B32@gmx.com>
References: <C10BF9D1-435D-47C9-B98C-9B118B5922A1@gmx.com>
<2318925.r6f9XVyAit@cherry>
<6AAD09CF-937E-4D35-B70A-CFDAB84A6B32@gmx.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:38:29 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The Excessive-Block Gate: How a Bitcoin Unlimited
Node Deals With Large Blocks
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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, 27 Nov 2016 07:46:50 -0000
On Saturday, 26 November 2016 15:35:49 CET Peter R via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Therefore, it is in the best interest of miners to all set the same block
> size limit (and reliably signal in their coinbase TX what that limit is,
> as done by Bitcoin Unlimited miners).
As a point of interest, last week I merged into Classic the same concept.
Classic will now respect the EB limit and put it in the coinbase.
> (This actually surprised me because the only way they could lose money is
> if some _other_ miner wasted even more money by purposely mining a
> destined-to-be-orphaned block.)
Your surprise may come from the difference in cost vs. expected earnings of
creating a block, which is quite significant.
--
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
|
