summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/0a/0a02132808f199ad5f50cb1c5394a43a5f2a18
blob: 063030977858f8d88a06d8b71ca901a508be2648 (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
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 <luke@dashjr.org>) 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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:15:45 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
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: <CABsx9T1uw43JuvhEmJP0KCyojsDi1r7v6BaLBHz7wWazduE5iw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T1uw43JuvhEmJP0KCyojsDi1r7v6BaLBHz7wWazduE5iw@mail.gmail.com>
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=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.