Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E481F43 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 04:42:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail2.openmailbox.org (mail2.openmailbox.org [62.4.1.33]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EB86EE for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 04:42:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail2.openmailbox.org (Postfix, from userid 1004) id 154A42AC1D87; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 05:42:05 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=openmailbox.org; s=openmailbox; t=1450672925; bh=jpGOOQBBy8u7Bb7VU4fhjn6YBtbCRmxO7X5r0LdUN28=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=RtlOhAo35lFivY0T07iLPcBBT9MonquPM1MGSHZZSBauu/E6FlLvcCKkCD2m3h2Vl FgE2nNpm7Z1nvYYHlgSZRdIH7xVFZCu2Vk8W9yHAsTwOUYJDHN/jm6MkgDPwRmpEBb Uo7UFJTJem1QFP4Mxcu6ooKsZ9SLjn31MsbEOxSY= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from www.openmailbox.org (openmailbox-b2 [10.91.69.220]) by mail2.openmailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0B1E2AC1D87; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 05:41:54 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 12:41:54 +0800 From: joe2015@openmailbox.org To: jl2012 In-Reply-To: References: <1bf64a5b514d57ca37744ae5f5238149@openmailbox.org> Message-ID: X-Sender: joe2015@openmailbox.org User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.6 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 04:45:15 +0000 Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Increasing the blocksize as a (generalized) softfork. 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: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 04:42:08 -0000 On 2015-12-21 12:23, jl2012 wrote: > I proposed something very similar 2 years ago: > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=283746.0 Yes there are similarities but also some important differences. See my response here: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012085.html In short my proposal is compatible with conventional blocksize limit hardfork ideas, like BIP101, BIP202, 2-4-8 etc. etc. > This is an interesting academic idea. But the way you implement it > will immediately kill all existing full and SPV nodes (not really > dead, rather like zombie as they can't send and receive any tx). That's the whole point. After a conventional hardfork everyone needs to upgrade, but there is no way to force users to upgrade. A user who is simply unaware of the fork, or disagrees with the fork, uses the old client and the currency splits. Under this proposal old clients effectively enter "zombie" mode, forcing users to upgrade. --joe