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
|
Return-Path: <jgarzik@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D55A87A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 17 Aug 2015 00:30:07 +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 D8751192
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 17 Aug 2015 00:30:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so58388388wic.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:30:05 -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:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=yfXBaD4Ey20qX8gsOepjn/MIQfKkNQcMZWkihw15Cz4=;
b=Yf0Vmt2e5F2eVIBCI+2xXwugSiQkZfyLikfbtyJtPP5+er4RYeVdTw4FM1eAmgDtmg
SMjDupUZc+J78bfvMir0X0jsCBbYDO/9bcAgGf8IzCimapR+lcbPbhkVNPENRsdzgWhl
PTXraTmvrEWTFTLq6Lb4Wls3BruGwAUfUb7QjRKe+hy+v3vWgm9rhibi5dUyAdzyaWWV
iSu7qzP6x8G12GOBzGQtoUxUf16RDsdkoxSaNO9eww1zPJuREndoSOcQoUyx4BLA8E9P
sEaiWNnMmM4/F2NqB27Imp9cGv5plUutOKj0UuRWqxHBBsB5IPSb1QR1vEwiP3A8OHY9
JsEw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.176.201 with SMTP id ck9mr22700678wjc.108.1439771405524;
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.140.196 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAG86ZOzEnjMw4xam5oUuuvyfoAps=47j418cZcw9BLs-yUCB2g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAG86ZOzEnjMw4xam5oUuuvyfoAps=47j418cZcw9BLs-yUCB2g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:30:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CADm_WcbEkpdKNF-LCAVDyRpip5W+4tdVq0mn3PzKpZgaZtS4Mw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
To: Levin Keller <post@levinkeller.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d1eb42f27eb051d76e78f
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
Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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 <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, 17 Aug 2015 00:30:07 -0000
--089e013d1eb42f27eb051d76e78f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
"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
>
>
--089e013d1eb42f27eb051d76e78f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">"minimum" an interesting topic.<div><br></div><d=
iv>- Traffic levels may not produce a minimum size block</div><div>- Miners=
can always collude to produce a lowered maximum block size, a sort of mini=
mum maximum</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_ex=
tra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Levin=
Keller via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev=
@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda=
tion.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=
=3D"ltr">Hey everyone,<div><br></div><div>as with the current "max blo=
ck 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 (ma=
ybe off-list) of ideas. I am in favor of a lower limit and am giving it qui=
te a bit of thought at the moment.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><sp=
an class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><div><br></div><div>Levin</div>=
</font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
--089e013d1eb42f27eb051d76e78f--
|
