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
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
|
Return-Path: <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4753A273
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:43:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qk0-f172.google.com (mail-qk0-f172.google.com
[209.85.220.172])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCD98AA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:43:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by qkfe185 with SMTP id e185so106892657qkf.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 22 Jun 2015 13:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc
:content-type; bh=5jGyNbg9zokMogMIP36wwJnJ0PQMRgTDZ9sNDNY5KzU=;
b=AKWWAVcrs3NVKhjlZlxnJdmCbLFq2q6XMaWxQ2B2XcmYdb/svvUw1l9XMx7sDVL2aB
PA1b13DWSIQwNGzhIBxX8NLrlzk/oKp5PwNpLMNjI31FSy+1OZTqfm2uV4MzM90Z2J84
lTCwo3cN2e4562LCe9VvC7zYgks/5QfImzZ1IPaC4XcYhJiW8QT3wYDm5qjfJY5u0K6k
dpt9kg4xf0JC/U9Osdq9POAHjJb6ciABALtXoijXh5s+SPWc8fKB/63oDYy5nVV2i9CC
+r5AENcTWWQrXSbeeAN7ozswGPkO4u0tXTECDoE0o/sffD955t2lech9A7yEXuPliCXU
5IDw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.31.85 with SMTP id f82mr52671979qkf.88.1435005822006;
Mon, 22 Jun 2015 13:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.85.241 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 13:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <dd09d1e5-57fb-46ef-8bc0-0fdccf9e7abb@me.com>
References: <dd09d1e5-57fb-46ef-8bc0-0fdccf9e7abb@me.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:43:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OUE_QS_CXXL5T7CAor82GMxidGPXpwiNvP6nQBi9+dX2w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1147b3ae4579240519215403
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MISSING_HEADERS,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Draft BIP : fixed-schedule block size increase
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: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:43:43 -0000
--001a1147b3ae4579240519215403
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman <jeanpaulkogelman@me.com
> wrote:
>
> Since it's possible that block timestamps aren't chronological in order,
> what would happen if a block following a size increase trigger is back in
> the past before the size increase? Would that block have a lower size
> restriction again? Would using block height not be a more stable number to
> work with?
>
The activation or not rule is purely timestamp based. Blocks with a
timestamp less than 1452470400 have a limit of 1MB. There could be an 8MB
block followed by a block that is limited to 1MB.
--001a1147b3ae4579240519215403
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On M=
on, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:jeanpaulkogelman@me.com" target=3D"_blank">jeanpaulkogelman@me=
.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"ma=
rgin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:=
1ex"><div><span class=3D""><div><br></div></span><div><span>Since it's =
possible that block timestamps aren't chronological in order, what woul=
d happen if a block following a size increase trigger is back in the past b=
efore the size increase? Would that block have a lower size restriction aga=
in? Would using block height not be a more stable number to work with?</spa=
n></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The activation or not rule i=
s purely timestamp based.=C2=A0 Blocks with a timestamp less than <span cla=
ss=3D""><span class=3D"">1452470400 have a limit of 1MB.</span></span>=C2=
=A0 There could be an 8MB block followed by a block that is limited to 1MB.=
<br></div></div></div></div>
--001a1147b3ae4579240519215403--
|
