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: <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DB43B64
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 25 Nov 2016 15:26:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx-out02.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FA10165
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 25 Nov 2016 15:26:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx05.mykolab.com (mx05.mykolab.com [10.20.7.161])
by mx-out02.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A40EA62A7A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 25 Nov 2016 16:26:00 +0100 (CET)
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 16:25:58 +0100
Message-ID: <61681436.SvSR6Fsd9n@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <CAKzdR-r7or+DF64qxT=HLUvrtdkSQD0hpO43kUjfWS-397+yHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C10BF9D1-435D-47C9-B98C-9B118B5922A1@gmx.com>
<CAKzdR-r7or+DF64qxT=HLUvrtdkSQD0hpO43kUjfWS-397+yHA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 15:31:46 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The Excessive-Block Gate: How a Bitcoin Unlimited
Node Deals With Large Blocks
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: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 15:26:12 -0000
On Thursday, 24 November 2016 22:39:05 CET Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-
dev wrote:
> Without a detailed analysis, unlimited block size seems a risky change to
> Bitcoin, to me.
What exactly do you think is a =E2=80=98change=E2=80=99 in bitcoin here?
The concept of proof-of-work is that the longer a chain, the higher=20
probability that that one will be extended for the simple reason that=20
another chain will have to show a higher amount of proof of work to =E2=80=
=98win=E2=80=99.
As far as I understand the document from Peter, there is no change there at=
=20
all. Only chains with more POW will win.
Or, to answer your example, miners will prefer to extend the chain with the=
=20
most POW.
The other fact stays the same as well, if you protect from reorgs by=20
expecting more confirmations. Nothing changes here either. The common-sense=
6=20
confirmations for things like exchange-deposits keep having the same=20
security.
The basic idea that we have a 3 or 4 deep fork is a huge problem in Bitcoin=
=2E=20
It hasn=E2=80=99t happened for ages, and we like it that way. The miners li=
ke it=20
that way too. Its disruptive.
The is a problem that is not created by the =E2=80=98excessive block=E2=80=
=99 concept. It=20
does, however, provide a possible solution to this very far-fetched problem.
You should also realize that the policy of a miner is stored in the=20
coinbase.
That said, I=E2=80=99m sure there are improvements to be made to the policy=
that BU=20
uses. But since this is a node-local policy, the consensus rules are not=20
affected by it.
=2D-=20
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
|
