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
|
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 178FDAAC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:48:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qk0-f178.google.com (mail-qk0-f178.google.com
[209.85.220.178])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1284118
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:48:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by qkhu186 with SMTP id u186so107881116qkh.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 22 Jun 2015 14:48:02 -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=Mjc1zGmFoiDsonsGe92/3SzqRYWJOdijRdSbeY9zRew=;
b=VF1C+r4AWwhO6xc5AkJ/Hmqg3PWnbTIXvNTkjNcv0SPL0sjtWH8uM/YdMa+EaX6EdY
aNsklFbpAcgmpvkcWlkra9rZR4LEvpMzNEbaZKCsT3jkxHnufvu9kIiFWFs0WZlWtH7U
Dy2uXbUgSGfm7/rJLgTz5Xj6LcsUpB7o/v9ajcugrXHB5iuVkidJ9KYloz98dhC5ZT/a
VB51nVzLhA34B1kmfhM/GMPp6I0/+Kieli7Pl6PzZgJK7uwotNEBaTnhSmef9s2cIXPN
t05yzF3Uww6POD6YE+aomxaED1q6FswNfWYh26O6+DwM8YU9b9GGCLV/i3aIq6sBngeb
fhtQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.16.83 with SMTP id a80mr47807494qkh.63.1435009681890;
Mon, 22 Jun 2015 14:48:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.85.241 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 14:48:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2FxNEEUx7_ZRf2NpQk1fdqMKtfzccX-duBjOn-ksS0cg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <dd09d1e5-57fb-46ef-8bc0-0fdccf9e7abb@me.com>
<20150622205420.GA8892@savin.petertodd.org>
<CABsx9T2FxNEEUx7_ZRf2NpQk1fdqMKtfzccX-duBjOn-ksS0cg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 22:48:01 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OUvuZLvWUVRFLeMA4GXOxEjbwTHBTo903JFhgG_TO0ypQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1146922a56a3180519223a10
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 21:48:03 -0000
--001a1146922a56a3180519223a10
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> That complicates the implementation quite a bit.
>
I think trying to keep the number of rules that require context to a
minimum is a good idea. As pointed out in the BIP, using only the
timestamp of the block means that the block limit can be determined purely
from the block header.
I don't think there is much issue with having a 1MB block following an 8MB
block during the activation.
This is inherent in using the timestamps. It occurs for every block that
has a timestamp lower than its parent, but to a lesser degree.
When fees are the main source of income, it does create a slight incentive
to use higher timestamps, but that is probably not massive, since it is 2
hours out of the 2 year doubling time.
--001a1146922a56a3180519223a10
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 10:21 PM, Gavin Andresen <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:gavinandresen@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gavinandresen@gmail.c=
om</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"marg=
in:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1e=
x"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><=
span class=3D""></span><div>That complicates the implementation quite a bit=
.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think trying to=
keep the number of rules that require context to a minimum is a good idea.=
=C2=A0 As pointed out in the BIP, using only the timestamp of the block mea=
ns that the block limit can be determined purely from the block header.<br>=
<br></div><div>I don't think there is much issue with having a 1MB bloc=
k following an 8MB block during the activation.<br><br></div><div>This is i=
nherent in using the timestamps.=C2=A0 It occurs for every block that has a=
timestamp lower than its parent, but to a lesser degree.<br><br></div><div=
>When fees are the main source of income, it does create a slight incentive=
to use higher timestamps, but that is probably not massive, since it is 2 =
hours out of the 2 year doubling time.<br></div></div></div></div>
--001a1146922a56a3180519223a10--
|
