Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1QwG7R-0001SA-DL for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:15:57 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1QwG7M-0000Ts-PV for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:15:57 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (fl-184-4-160-40.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [184.4.160.40]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0EA7B560734 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:15:45 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:15:34 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.39-gentoo; KDE/4.6.4; x86_64; ; ) References: In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: CE5A D56A 36CC 69FA E7D2 3558 665F C11D D53E 9583 X-PGP-Key-ID: 665FC11DD53E9583 X-PGP-Keyserver: x-hkp://subkeys.pgp.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201108241215.36847.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1QwG7M-0000Ts-PV Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New standard transaction types: time to schedule a blockchain split? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:15:57 -0000 On Wednesday, August 24, 2011 11:12:10 AM Gavin Andresen wrote: > So, if we are going to have new releases that are incompatible with > old clients why not do things right in the first place, implement or > enable opcodes so the new bitcoin addresses can be small, and schedule > a block chain split for N months from now. If a block chain split is to occur, it makes sense to try to fix as many problems as possible: - Replace hard limits (like 1 MB maximum block size) with something that can dynamically adapt with the times. Maybe based on difficulty so it can't be gamed? - Adjust difficulty every block, without limits, based on a N-block sliding window. I think this would solve the issue when the hashrate drops overnight, but maybe also add a block time limit, or perhaps include the "current block" in the difficulty calculation? - 21 million really isn't enough if Bitcoin ever takes off, even with 100,000,000 units per BTC. Replacing the "Satoshi" 64-bit integers with "Satoshi" variable-size fractions (ie, infinite numerator + denominator) would create infinite possibilities of future divison, allowing people to not only do nBTC and pBTC, but also exact 1/3 of any quantity. Transaction size would go up based on the number of primes involved in an amount, which would encourage discarding annoying primes in transaction fees. - Standardize everything on network (big) endian. I'm sure others can think of other chain-splitting fixes that wouldn't be too much work to fix.