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
|
Return-Path: <joe2015@openmailbox.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8518EEE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 20 Dec 2015 17:21:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail2.openmailbox.org (mail2.openmailbox.org [62.4.1.33])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6006B164
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 20 Dec 2015 17:21:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail2.openmailbox.org (Postfix, from userid 1004)
id 15A7C2AC2CF2; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 18:21:23 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=openmailbox.org;
s=openmailbox; t=1450632083;
bh=klZvRoLKugYQLoQIPIgDGi1IJcV51Jn3dCvuH6KHYUM=;
h=Date:From:To:Subject:From;
b=akzURSzjp/wnIl9dOaty9+pc9YWCLp0S8lKffOitQXsL8W72Fm7b/tpmIGU5nLIXy
B82+M35lyktyssuqRwJyAFAR6x5q4hnu0taMutPb2pefC3yaL1VnthVpKNhnkOpQCg
yIZRYP7cjVwgOxcp0n/N68RCk3DQeRa2OOD2CL8w=
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from www.openmailbox.org (openmailbox-b1 [10.91.69.218])
by mail2.openmailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA4252AC29DB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 20 Dec 2015 18:21:22 +0100 (CET)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 01:21:22 +0800
From: joe2015@openmailbox.org
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Message-ID: <dcf6dfa0f7fdcf96e9970e815e4c9b78@openmailbox.org>
X-Sender: joe2015@openmailbox.org
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.6
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 18:14:46 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Increasing the blocksize as a (generalized)
softfork.
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: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 17:21:25 -0000
On 2015-12-20 23:50, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> This is essentially the "nuclear option".
Remember this is proposed as an alternative to hardforks, which is also
a "nuclear option". Hardforks carry significant risks such as
permanently splitting Bitcoin into two chains if global consensus is
never reached. A (generalized) softfork avoids this problem.
> This could be achieved by adding the hash of an extended block into
> the coinbase but not requiring the coinbase to be the only
> transaction.
I think this can also be viewed as a generalized softfork if one so
chooses, e.g.
NewBlock := OldBlock ++ ExtendedBlock
f(NewBlock) = OldBlock
I do not think this is a bad idea but is more complex than my proposal,
e.g. users having to move coins between different tiers of blocks.
Under my proposal the Bitcoin works more or less the same except with a
larger limit.
--joe
|
