Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA5A48E8 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 15:02:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f170.google.com (mail-io0-f170.google.com [209.85.223.170]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45093110 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 15:02:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iodv127 with SMTP id v127so48964165iod.3 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:02:07 -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:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=LhtTGRyWd7/yvCyKUddnY+/pCDYFF7ha0m9Pg4IzDI8=; b=bVk2gf2vQoLt2/M0IWNa72GEU/hhJI3MU9CAH4aeysRUhjU1lOJ79TG6VT+t3sE5fr YoEGytg82a3RHmKbkQsSFuC5t4a8JmwUUqo1LP4SDbpvPcIpeTMozl5OBmki8bonS7zx ztKnJAGUZzvS4WVTfNVRWa5vRKyii+FTw72nWoTLIkEVeIImTND3xFdbQEEkzDlFdZRD WVdwWa45oKoscPJcd3nblw55RA6JHr13ZnO2heymG2XCBDILrFDnIXuY6O+qsBH1gfpC 6bDU1+Kbw5DteRkKHN87D3woEVxVS/c+5DyO3Ifei4bqG1fYSXKadkak5YcQBv/Hh0Mm Lgyg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn04lIKSxmERDAPKn7jTGrZmMLt9dYHu/D12yuZ4eQh9AxjWe2KgBWQ/VdUAta0vXQk6K2b MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.46.86 with SMTP id i83mr2858835ioo.121.1440082927232; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:02:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.18.155 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:02:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [115.187.38.4] Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 20:32:07 +0530 Message-ID: From: Upal Chakraborty To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1137949e5363b7051dbf6fde X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB 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] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 15:02:08 -0000 --001a1137949e5363b7051dbf6fde Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Regarding... i. http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010493.html ii. http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010499.html Could we please keep the conversation specific to the proposal presented at http://upalc.com/maxblocksize.php ? If you find any demerits to this, please point them out. Otherwise, I'll ask for a BIP. The proposal in algorithmic format is as follows... If more than 50% of block's size, found in the first 2000 of the last difficulty period, is more than 90% MaxBlockSize Double MaxBlockSize Else if more than 90% of block's size, found in the first 2000 of the last difficulty period, is less than 50% MaxBlockSize Half MaxBlockSize Else Keep the same MaxBlockSize --001a1137949e5363b7051dbf6fde Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Could we please = keep the conversation specific to the proposal presented at=C2=A0http://upalc.com/maxblocksize.php ?= If you find any demerits to this, please point them out. Otherwise, I'= ll ask for a BIP. The proposal in algorithmic format is as follows...
= 

If=
 more than 50% of block's size, found in the first 2000 of the last dif=
ficulty period, is more than 90% MaxBlockSize
         Double MaxBlockSize
Else if more than 90% of block's size, found in the first 2000 of the l=
ast difficulty period, is less than 50% MaxBlockSize
         Half MaxBlockSize
Else
         Keep the same MaxBlockSize
--001a1137949e5363b7051dbf6fde--