Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0313C3EE for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 01:21:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi0-f41.google.com (mail-oi0-f41.google.com [209.85.218.41]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 636A215E for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 01:21:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by oio137 with SMTP id 137so72260974oio.0 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:disposition-notification-to:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=R63OPjkeVW4KklZ8qOzx1EL9Lh+U6tMDQzwrdx7OURs=; b=aeCe9f25gfmAD1v2AKwJFHbLYFmeXd1JbafKEg0oY7LmMOGNXlAO4JkwRpUrKEnFBa Tiii+m0hHiJbOEwK4Bdcftphf19DjjifUaNmugfixIAfdqBKTEl0e25JPQsRz2dO2SXw e8HPITkx1DmooIlsvix4rNPHvCqzlLw67AKdpM1UVRLKYDTMNaLRMxaqqTiRK2ptT2iK mkrYfiwqRItd4dDD4fGeeIX4OZQMrflUvVtkBP7UGRonXH/vT7IfDOWGh0nGlX1VvVRc CgDxLtJSlq4vN+lhpBYiXAZk0aySAHNeDUUmK9gvMMsdT5Kx6HWT4OwRuiPXwlsAjZeh ojOA== X-Received: by 10.202.196.82 with SMTP id u79mr47206979oif.78.1439774459797; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.27.6.190] (75-104-65-16.mobility.exede.net. [75.104.65.16]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id a10sm7149148obl.9.2015.08.16.18.20.56 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55D136F1.7010104@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:20:49 -0700 From: Patrick Strateman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060401090807090809000502" 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: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Minimum Block Size 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, 17 Aug 2015 01:21:01 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060401090807090809000502 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The first question to answer here is simple: What value would there be in requiring a minimum block size? I see no value. On 08/16/2015 05:30 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote: > "minimum" an interesting topic. > > - Traffic levels may not produce a minimum size block > - Miners can always collude to produce a lowered maximum block size, a > sort of minimum maximum > > > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Levin Keller via bitcoin-dev > > wrote: > > Hey everyone, > > as with the current "max block size" debate I was wondering: Is > anyone here in favor of a minimum block size (say 2 MB or so)? If > so I would be interested in an exchange (maybe off-list) of ideas. > I am in favor of a lower limit and am giving it quite a bit of > thought at the moment. > > Cheers > > Levin > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --------------060401090807090809000502 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The first question to answer here is simple:

What value would there be in requiring a minimum block size?

I see no value.

On 08/16/2015 05:30 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote:
"minimum" an interesting topic.

- Traffic levels may not produce a minimum size block
- Miners can always collude to produce a lowered maximum block size, a sort of minimum maximum



On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Levin Keller via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hey everyone,

as with the current "max block size" debate I was wondering: Is anyone here in favor of a minimum block size (say 2 MB or so)? If so I would be interested in an exchange (maybe off-list) of ideas. I am in favor of a lower limit and am giving it quite a bit of thought at the moment.

Cheers

Levin

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev




_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--------------060401090807090809000502--