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 6FC5D1627 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 17:40:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-yk0-f178.google.com (mail-yk0-f178.google.com [209.85.160.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E054420D for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 17:40:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ykft14 with SMTP id t14so49179462ykf.0 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 10:40:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=3xcmCiIlCpZocJqjDL2VYJUzM/hhhneIX0gisQLTlHg=; b=hW4N8J71FKZpk0SO40gYv16JM/dY+yAPfvRpI913V3j/r6kYqF4XIv4ailYiWwFM9+ 4Aqj33nitT3j2VyQgLkmVssGrvAWgkE+rcLlu6BHgiiWcnenbD4kgMgKWmgBdP8LAp1o islxMrVAAjfpEjwfy7/iRC4mPcC3HRjX6pCo6hSidJ4whTPCvtnzNg2zGpiow/fvD8vD 3f4dlrDDoMZG7pSG5ej/HTkIFayinpl+NdJAFrv2QKe7sscxc46Lf/9Ms0NJxXtmrHwk SSnufStSM+bMzR8Xwh1BrcqxOEv0bEdXnE9VCgD4OKxC3dq0X3++Fu9AaCB9F6WTJ8Tn 0hZA== X-Received: by 10.170.45.77 with SMTP id 74mr27298069ykn.77.1443030058133; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 10:40:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [100.102.197.240] (73.sub-70-215-13.myvzw.com. [70.215.13.73]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q62sm4999292ywe.49.2015.09.23.10.40.56 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Sep 2015 10:40:56 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Gavin X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13A344) In-Reply-To: <64D181DA-05F6-4636-8F44-0FA63B758947@gmx.com> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 13:40:58 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <64D181DA-05F6-4636-8F44-0FA63B758947@gmx.com> To: Peter R X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Weak block thoughts... X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 17:40:59 -0000 > On Sep 23, 2015, at 12:28 PM, Peter R wrote: >=20 > Hi Gavin, >=20 > One thing that's not clear to me is whether it is even necessary--from the= perspective of the block size limit--to consider block propagation. =20 I didn't mention the block size limit; weak blocks are a good idea no matter= the limit. As for miners paying for the work: lots of companies contributed to the Foun= dation, and will contribute to the DCI. When there are big, stable, profitab= le companies I think we'll see them task their developers to contribute code= . I think optimizing new block propagation is interesting and important, so I p= lan on working on it.