From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A7A5279 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2017 20:05:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9019CD for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2017 20:05:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 00CD738A006A; Mon, 2 Jan 2017 20:04:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:170102:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::SotdckY89mM+Bhw9:ck3L X-Hashcash: 1:25:170102:teekhan42@gmail.com::cWlsbHInh2Gm1ZuY:AZJ9 From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, "t. khan" Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 20:04:56 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.4.39-gentoo; KDE/4.14.24; x86_64; ; ) References: In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201701022004.57540.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - 'Block75' - New algorithm X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2017 20:05:04 -0000 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