MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDp2TONJxSVSdS7bq-WAXNVfQGZiKyhx2haerA3WkoaNxQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALNn0ZZ5gY6R7gzpLpbNnFecAz35ZqaLx_RNPxx=SoJTAdHDXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDp2TONJxSVSdS7bq-WAXNVfQGZiKyhx2haerA3WkoaNxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:04:27 -0500
Message-ID: <CALNn0ZYDw+f1j+7PydnAaDqx+sP93EAxQDccisM1+R2UJc7Pog@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bdimych Bdimych <bdimych@gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size possible solution - to set minimum size
Precedence: list

I apologize, I'm not familiar with technical details, may be stupid,
only general thoughts:
-overlapped block sizes - two blockchains, uncertainty, unpredictable
results, trust gets down
-non-overlapped - single blockchain, determined growing, everybody
knows the schedule what and when will happen

---

You wrote "cheated",
but why?
If it will be possible to fill with zeroes
[transactions]+[zeroes]
or
[transactions]+[miner's dummy transactions]
why the second variant will be better for miner?
and why it will be not good for other users?


With Best Regards
Dmitry Bolshakov
bdimych@gmail.com


On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 1:40 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:
> A minimum block size does nothing to prevent the problems that come
> from schism hardforks.
> But also a minimum block size can be trivially cheated as recently
> explained on this list:
>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/01031=
7.html
>
> "[...] miners can just pay to themselves to follow the minimum size
> block rule without risking anything.
> As long as they have a single matured satoshi they can just pay to
> themselves with it as many times as they need in the same block."
>
> It is good to search previous post before proposing or asking
> something (it could have been proposed/asked earlier):
>
> http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 1:30 AM, Bdimych Bdimych via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> As I understand the main problem of the fork Core<->XT is possibility
>> of double spending:
>> -I run XT and spend my coins
>> -it is written in 8mb block
>> -Core does not accept this block
>> -I run Core and spend my coins again
>> -it is written in 1mb block
>> -but XT accepts this block too
>> so
>> -in the XT blockchain both blocks [8] and [1] contain my coins
>>
>> I thought that possible solution can be to set minimum block size
>> i.e.
>> 2016: 1mb <=3D blockSize < 2mb
>> 2017: 2mb <=3D blockSize < 3mb
>> 2018: 3mb <=3D blockSize < 4mb
>> etc
>>
>> Free space could be filled with zeroes and compressed.
>>
>> That's all, just an idea.
>>
>>
>> With Best Regards
>> Dmitry Bolshakov
>> bdimych@gmail.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev