Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size possible solution - to set minimum size

["Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon.cc>]

A minimum block size does nothing to prevent the problems that come
from schism hardforks.
But also a minimum block size can be trivially cheated as recently
explained on this list:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010317.html

"[...] miners can just pay to themselves to follow the minimum size
block rule without risking anything.
As long as they have a single matured satoshi they can just pay to
themselves with it as many times as they need in the same block."

It is good to search previous post before proposing or asking
something (it could have been proposed/asked earlier):

http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html


On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 1:30 AM, Bdimych Bdimych via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> As I understand the main problem of the fork Core<->XT is possibility
> of double spending:
> -I run XT and spend my coins
> -it is written in 8mb block
> -Core does not accept this block
> -I run Core and spend my coins again
> -it is written in 1mb block
> -but XT accepts this block too
> so
> -in the XT blockchain both blocks [8] and [1] contain my coins
>
> I thought that possible solution can be to set minimum block size
> i.e.
> 2016: 1mb <= blockSize < 2mb
> 2017: 2mb <= blockSize < 3mb
> 2018: 3mb <= blockSize < 4mb
> etc
>
> Free space could be filled with zeroes and compressed.
>
> That's all, just an idea.
>
>
> With Best Regards
> Dmitry Bolshakov
> bdimych@gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev