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-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <rusty@ozlabs.org>) id 1XjyzV-00070l-U0
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 30 Oct 2014 23:18:53 +0000
X-ACL-Warn: 
Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67])
	by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1XjyzU-0004FD-Bx
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 30 Oct 2014 23:18:53 +0000
Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011)
	id 7E552140082; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:18:44 +1100 (AEDT)
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: "Bitcoin Dev" <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:48:34 +1030
Message-ID: <874mul9met.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-0.6 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
	domain
X-Headers-End: 1XjyzU-0004FD-Bx
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing regularity of block times?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 23:18:54 -0000

Hi all,

        I've been toying with an algorithm to place a ceiling on
confirmation latency by allowing weaker blocks after a certain time.
Hope this isn't noise, but thought someone must have considered this
before, or know of flaws in the scheme?

Gory details:
http://rustyrussell.github.io/pettycoin/2014/10/30/More-Regular-Block-Times.html

Thanks,
Rusty.