public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, "t. khan" <teekhan42@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - 'Block75' - New algorithm
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 20:04:56 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201701022004.57540.luke@dashjr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGCNRJoN7u3yvzitH2KSmVty-p0tX9jxWLHPb8uO5CPZmxmoRg@mail.gmail.com>

On Monday, January 02, 2017 6:04:37 PM t. khan via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Thoughts? For any predictions as to how this would behave, please provide
> the numbers used to arrive at any conclusions.

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.

> 2. Is there any need for a minimum max blocksize? Block75 allows for
> decreasing the size as well as increasing it.

Probably it should never make it so small that a reasonable generation 
transaction cannot fit. But I'm not sure this needs explicit enforcement.

> To help negate some of the risk associated with a hard fork and to prevent
> a single relatively small mining pool from blocking Block75's adoption,
> activation would occur once 900 of the last 1,000 blocks mined signaled
> support, with a grace period of 4,032 blocks.

If you can't trust miners to signal based on the community's consensus, then 
don't use miner signalling at all. Just set a block height it activates.

> Thank you again to all those who commented on the previous Block75 thread.
> Together, we can make 2017 the year the block size debate ends (hopefully
> forever).

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.

Luke


  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-01-02 20:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-01-02 18:04 [bitcoin-dev] BIP - 'Block75' - New algorithm t. khan
2017-01-02 19:01 ` Tom Zander
2017-01-02 19:32   ` t. khan
2017-01-02 20:35     ` Tom Zander
2017-01-02 21:05       ` t. khan
2017-01-02 22:33         ` Tom Zander
2017-01-02 21:19       ` Luke Dashjr
2017-01-02 22:01         ` Tom Zander
2017-01-03 14:28         ` t. khan
2017-02-13 11:21         ` Hampus Sjöberg
2017-01-02 20:04 ` Luke Dashjr [this message]
2017-01-02 20:41   ` t. khan

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=201701022004.57540.luke@dashjr.org \
    --to=luke@dashjr.org \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=teekhan42@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox