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
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EB53ACD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 9 Sep 2015 18:51:39 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com (mail-wi0-f173.google.com
[209.85.212.173])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA29D3F2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 9 Sep 2015 18:51:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wiclk2 with SMTP id lk2so2132404wic.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 09 Sep 2015 11:51:37 -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:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=hWogaa5GvZ+UQXofLIrQJZss3Y0suOX6Ir/oOWF/J2Y=;
b=GlLN8H2XimCo/F0E+fwUtcypGPJrAv92zWXB1ThBv2y+vzjSQ+xrl4MgY+72OMgyip
wpj2FFl9tfCrlU7i10jSWRSikWVmvoUuubrlnM2p4x8e/Xp0xabp4NhRDC+y/N26JbB4
O5wflpzbZQBIkoencqBVgTN8zjcAslDa/TqhYysLgtYo8XYAtU+tP44xa/gmnV18r3DS
H1eXXxw8PyYuAd9sKCZaJVLT7z37kEZW2VUgbMcyTnRJokcKgqG7c+dz0pSeswf0KxQ4
tsA1jOLj+uMz6JEBIvf1ZggPpk99H9/G0H3EqwJrM2zWEyzzm1htevb0uPXuFpvXHNQu
nPtg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkcaL9+iqNab0+SRKU/BLxBmerAFEPnsBeWGqlnbeJRSw+c7mI/HUp5NrWLcGmfKU7EQlh/
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.238.39 with SMTP id vh7mr58792097wjc.109.1441824697356;
Wed, 09 Sep 2015 11:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.37.5 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 11:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.37.5 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 11:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAUq485B5AoTpRBzf0=KFm-k58Zoz+ns-Y7BXc3JwG87VsDo+g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAUq485B5AoTpRBzf0=KFm-k58Zoz+ns-Y7BXc3JwG87VsDo+g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:51:37 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDrsnVEkcq2CPwK4fcJpwHj6ouTSRnk4U2bMBOPvjRuD_w@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Marcel Jamin <marcel@jamin.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0141aa1aea4914051f54f82d
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Yet another blocklimit proposal / compromise
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 18:51:39 -0000
--089e0141aa1aea4914051f54f82d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sep 9, 2015 8:36 PM, "Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> I propose to:
>
> a) assess what blocklimit is currently technically possible without
driving up costs of running a node up too much. Most systems currently
running a fullnode probably have some capacity left.
What about the risk of further increasing mining centralization?
--089e0141aa1aea4914051f54f82d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
<p dir="ltr"><br>
On Sep 9, 2015 8:36 PM, "Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev" <<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> I propose to:<br>
><br>
> a) assess what blocklimit is currently technically possible without driving up costs of running a node up too much. Most systems currently running a fullnode probably have some capacity left.</p>
<p dir="ltr">What about the risk of further increasing mining centralization?<br>
</p>
--089e0141aa1aea4914051f54f82d--
|
