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 5A6B7905 for ; Wed, 31 May 2017 01:22:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f181.google.com (mail-ua0-f181.google.com [209.85.217.181]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCBCA12A for ; Wed, 31 May 2017 01:22:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f181.google.com with SMTP id u10so1348178uaf.1 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 18:22:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Bged53+af4v1WgXbQ+OY3MlsdQRHcnH8ISNW4hugBgE=; b=Doy9JXd+2D6Abb0FpZiQ6mODN5YyYuHcVuxMaE3wByCB19FOr4OmsnLXed2Mr6NEV2 s4foB1L3Uo/lX8LBDAAiLK3Lx7WerS4kiUCEmiD5PUll+RvNjtzLiEPaT16L0ZS8ORqm RwAmK0LiFrqRaFRYLNFyatOJAeC6om4ATHGVzSt9Ll8IgRVswbAi6fvT+Aw72jIpuRqR 0Ot1e1WpSsxARQRsHp9wow6vK6WCM40L2mNr+N3QKfmCWd5iiP14jTnHHvvudaeiFmXJ a0W5S/yf38eYcjfXH5mRmlCLljsoJLdaQ6VUKWhSws8wj3qAw6qDDbRnO4Pf863if8ws 5ajg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Bged53+af4v1WgXbQ+OY3MlsdQRHcnH8ISNW4hugBgE=; b=CrlTNhkFrTUc1p1iRJoGpNylKXR6kXpJo0Nqbyo7YhEomPuZHUa+G7jl5xY5ggIyiH O70jLE7quv/ADkGjnRbbLqpcT+dzLv7wLvRgB72/YmmSYYX5vhDynKrvJO3+h4hcvchP lbz7sawERJIlrjPY/87hXcE9D5gK9/+Nk9HIlYdWnWN/BK8xCK88Ny+vc/5k55ofuu9q woZrikK5ptdLXmdDHK3IoI8nCva1MOsWFfGjM2RxNjIzTkCZ8/ZNlzPBV5btrjx/X293 xkmc18+JfArDgmx98pAwu+d9veD6+K0rz8qjf3Y9btEt0lRCe+V9do3hMYFNo9lV9zEp bTZA== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCAf1doJasHlBJ4raQrbhMnGJLmMrPhuNBDsIju5RFJsO2b0B3+ OXxPY8WVtZpBeHe9YxtDYxnAqhQ4U5Ua X-Received: by 10.176.1.196 with SMTP id 62mr12615048ual.77.1496193765052; Tue, 30 May 2017 18:22:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.52.213 with HTTP; Tue, 30 May 2017 18:22:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201705232023.40588.luke@dashjr.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 03:22:44 +0200 Message-ID: To: James MacWhyte Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no 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] Hypothetical 2 MB hardfork to follow BIP148 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: Wed, 31 May 2017 01:22:46 -0000 On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:50 AM, James MacWhyte wrote: > >> >> The 1MB classic block size prevents quadratic hashing >> problems from being any worse than they are today. >> > > Add a transaction-size limit of, say, 10kb and the quadratic hashing problem > is a non-issue. Donezo. Why is it https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L1661 not enough at this point? Why the need for a transaction size limit?