From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UFpzM-0006H1-TO for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:01:20 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from 2508ds5-oebr.1.fullrate.dk ([90.184.5.129] helo=mail.ceptacle.com) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1UFpzH-0007Xs-7f for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:01:20 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ceptacle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4928E2B9638D; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:01:09 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ceptacle.com Received: from mail.ceptacle.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server.ceptacle.private [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R65SGHElpsNn; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:01:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.0.1.67] (2508ds5-oebr.1.fullrate.dk [90.184.5.129]) by mail.ceptacle.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8A5F12B96371; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:01:03 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: Michael Gronager In-Reply-To: <20130313174838.GA22621@savin> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:01:02 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2FCCE0F7-66B0-4EBE-8448-C5F0F92A75FF@ceptacle.com> References: <20130313174838.GA22621@savin> To: Gavin Andresen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. X-Headers-End: 1UFpzH-0007Xs-7f Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Blocksize and off-chain transactions X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:01:21 -0000 Please note that it was not 0.8 that had issues, but 0.7(and downwards). I really think changing features in 0.8 aiming for a fluffy limit to = avoid lock object errors on 0.7 is the wrong way to go, and it will = never cover for a similar situations in the future. Instead I would like to propose a setup for "considerate mining": * Run pools either on newest or second newest version (up to you = depending on which features you like as a pool admin) - say e.g. 0.8 * Connect to the rest of the bitcoin network _only_ through a node of = the other version - say e.g. 0.7 This guarantees that no blocks will get into the network that will not = be accepted by both 0.8 and 0.7. Those two versions together should add = up to say >90%. Once everyone else (90%) have upgraded to the newest, (0.8), drop the = 0.7 and start to introduce 0.9 instead. /M