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
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
|
Return-Path: <teekhan42@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E0A2259
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 2 Jan 2017 20:41:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ua0-f175.google.com (mail-ua0-f175.google.com
[209.85.217.175])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA58314C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 2 Jan 2017 20:41:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ua0-f175.google.com with SMTP id 88so302818313uaq.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 02 Jan 2017 12:41:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=SisfE1E8VE44Ma6mDI4eHmBASd/9zH4ZzVpzPmVHPc0=;
b=U8Hc93Ok/3fHf1DNeOSlAkfMafjZd335/lBjTFVzh5uF3Vy31GR9PiLzQe+2v5RaNM
5QfEvf1YQ6vCHgg8Lnp+tvNexg9mznmPeBITljzZmKiptRaHYiu8XV/fsHtcEqgIJIQj
IBqX2+2sVubLd4lsSx/X2xPyQzJ5NZJk1Vpu2xSs2um/MjX/rAQ//tw3GDuqPoUhB3Rp
o33gCQmsyIBWrvcsi4GtXye7ZII3OOx3tROUFavVJXJ9s/IWlCi6q98UEzHBmT155esr
+M5pMTSA5my6+Gdc9n7HbIxEjSr95cnbFlEgXJZf6j6DMXosCw5PW9n2XimK53seguFc
pLgQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=SisfE1E8VE44Ma6mDI4eHmBASd/9zH4ZzVpzPmVHPc0=;
b=oJKMhPIOansc7qxLHkP941xTddYW3/EofsUF9deKkdQkY4tIS2baQSa4/Wtrc5mD8J
OP8pUd51nQQvpg9VCU/6kwtaefW/ToKQAZnpFLsMLboEvIvHG95JbaHSslRpbXbqQZSV
LmgqvTHeCMI2VnmAkwK+8kjT2LGUrLE19R583EJ+1HHh2kmUPqDFTHZvVa+7llDF9Cfq
/KMyeot9AvlF2P1hOEfo25icn6rgBiTXBj2bB3fUIh78VTuCLDKHMfB0SHnMTiYS5WuM
8ZXhapuEta2x+6Bk8mob6vLZ1GjNalzXQceotuFC//n2WdVj6/EYnMJ2IApZyr9emUwL
Km0A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIThziQJG/f3f7ac5nhqans/LwFMvW5dSvi+tgWN7411ur1BFezs97z0L5ug6drSmO2ruNv2WDTfaONyA==
X-Received: by 10.159.48.203 with SMTP id k11mr42259784uab.42.1483389703140;
Mon, 02 Jan 2017 12:41:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.49.144 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Jan 2017 12:41:42 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <201701022004.57540.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CAGCNRJoN7u3yvzitH2KSmVty-p0tX9jxWLHPb8uO5CPZmxmoRg@mail.gmail.com>
<201701022004.57540.luke@dashjr.org>
From: "t. khan" <teekhan42@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 15:41:42 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGCNRJrXCVWGf4+zqsoDsRn5rHV2PDWSj01j4WtRixJCPbPDAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045e34f451cf6d0545229475
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,
HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - 'Block75' - New algorithm
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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, 02 Jan 2017 20:41:44 -0000
--f403045e34f451cf6d0545229475
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> It would probably behave as an ever-increasing block size limit. Spam has
> typically filled blocks to the max, and miners have stopped self-enforcing
> reasonable limits.
Using the growth rate over the last year as a model (
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?daysAverageString=14 ),
Block75 would also have frequently decreased the limit. Though, yes, more
transactions would equal larger blocks over time, but that's the entire
point of this.
What is your definition of "spam"? Also, can you point to data that
supports the hypothesis that spam is filling blocks?
> I doubt you'll get consensus for such a fundamentally broken proposal.
>
I certainly don't foresee any circumstance where I could reasonably support
> it... The block size limit exists to restrict miners; it makes no sense to
> put
> it in their control.
>
Specifically, what is broken about it?
There would still be a block size limit, it would just change slightly
every two weeks. I agree that miners shouldn't have control of this, and
Block75 doesn't give them any (at least none they can make a profit on).
- t.k.
--f403045e34f451cf6d0545229475
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Luke Dashjr <span dir=3D"l=
tr"><<a href=3D"mailto:luke@dashjr.org" target=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr.or=
g</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_q=
uote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;b=
order-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:s=
olid;padding-left:1ex">It would probably behave as an ever-increasing block=
size limit. Spam has<br>
typically filled blocks to the max, and miners have stopped self-enforcing<=
br>
reasonable limits.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Using the growth rate ov=
er the last year as a model ( <a href=3D"https://blockchain.info/charts/avg=
-block-size?daysAverageString=3D14">https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-bloc=
k-size?daysAverageString=3D14</a> ), Block75 would also have frequently dec=
reased the limit. Though, yes, more transactions would equal larger blocks =
over time, but that's the entire point of this.</div><div><br></div><di=
v>What is your definition of "spam"? Also, can you point to data =
that supports the hypothesis that spam is filling blocks?</div><div>=C2=A0<=
/div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;bo=
rder-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:so=
lid;padding-left:1ex">I doubt you'll get consensus for such a fundament=
ally broken proposal.<br></blockquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty=
le=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(=
204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
I certainly don't foresee any circumstance where I could reasonably sup=
port<br>
it... The block size limit exists to restrict miners; it makes no sense to =
put<br>
it in their control.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Specifically, what=
is broken about it?</div><div><br></div><div>There would still be a block =
size limit, it would just change slightly every two weeks. I agree that min=
ers shouldn't have control of this, and Block75 doesn't give them a=
ny (at least none they can make a profit on).</div><div><br></div><div>- t.=
k.</div></div></div></div>
--f403045e34f451cf6d0545229475--
|
