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
|
Return-Path: <hectorchu@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E294487
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 1 Aug 2015 00:06:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-lb0-f174.google.com (mail-lb0-f174.google.com
[209.85.217.174])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E18537C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 1 Aug 2015 00:06:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by lbqc9 with SMTP id c9so29228823lbq.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type;
bh=sIP42xs9HK0GBHL6L7B3RYXJY+dMLA3lRSdZjNuUJis=;
b=eny5AqtpOys9ASkKGMqywWHFLLrZB8W+iAK1IwgSii/inMUBgUK7e1SXtsCKUm5qOD
XqeFHynuuOJuYIuWIInjRkWq4nwp0jPXKX+CJlXtEN7SZmc7Kf0aRl08QyjPTcPVFDtG
yHMsk6WRT6asi9IwkU385Vjih4LfFr9FwMeRufIQpk43dhYl3Vzs6iboO/kkVBLu97aK
vcJaZCpD/1Ei6te5bCyIF2UmkcqEL8SnBrn/0gGxAkPdeNxzjao5QdW1VDZyIl8CE0X9
8+rZKwsvoCDOTGXrjEuL+BXa2aW2eWg08F1IqbXuUMoN3sx1HfhLwO77a9lhco0KEuO1
bWGQ==
X-Received: by 10.152.45.9 with SMTP id i9mr5905521lam.105.1438387562828; Fri,
31 Jul 2015 17:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.21.94 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:05:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Hector Chu <hectorchu@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 01:05:43 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAO2FKFQjjftgEgZoDAUrMxa86KTbNzAqg+xgExTRPpGxedwRw@mail.gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2750abb5a3a051c34b397
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
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Block size hard fork
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: Sat, 01 Aug 2015 00:06:05 -0000
--001a11c2750abb5a3a051c34b397
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I haven't seen much discussion on this list of what will happen when the
blockchain forks due to larger blocks. I think the debate surrounding this
issue is a storm in a teacup, because transactions on the smaller chain can
and will appear on the bigger chain also. There is nothing tying
transactions to the blocks they appear in.
Miners will migrate to the bigger chain in search of higher profits due to
higher volume of fees. They can also collect the higher fees of the smaller
chain by including into the bigger chain as many as possible of the
transactions from the smaller chain.
To stop this from happening the smaller chain would somehow need to change
the serialized format of their transactions so the signatures would no
longer be valid across chains.
Incidentally I read somewhere that the losing chain would have their coins
sold down. Trying to sell the smaller chain's coins in the short term at
least is not advisable, as those transactions will appear on the bigger
chain too.
--001a11c2750abb5a3a051c34b397
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">I haven't seen much discussion on this list of what wi=
ll happen when the blockchain forks due to larger blocks. I think the debat=
e surrounding this issue is a storm in a teacup, because transactions on th=
e smaller chain can and will appear on the bigger chain also. There is noth=
ing tying transactions to the blocks they appear in.<div><br></div><div>Min=
ers will migrate to the bigger chain in search of higher profits due to hig=
her volume of fees. They can also collect the higher fees of the smaller ch=
ain by including into the bigger chain as many as possible of the transacti=
ons from the smaller chain.</div><div><br></div><div>To stop this from happ=
ening the smaller chain would somehow need to change the serialized format =
of their transactions so the signatures would no longer be valid across cha=
ins.</div><div><br></div><div>Incidentally I read somewhere that the losing=
chain would have their coins sold down. Trying to sell the smaller chain&#=
39;s coins in the short term at least is not advisable, as those transactio=
ns will appear on the bigger chain too.</div></div>
--001a11c2750abb5a3a051c34b397--
|
