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 DCC038F5 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 14:52:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qt0-f171.google.com (mail-qt0-f171.google.com [209.85.216.171]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20944128 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 14:52:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f171.google.com with SMTP id x35so17268012qtc.2 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 07:52:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=VWq4exPTV3YEsenh8c8WWhBa5gzQnyvRuShjrbPxMcY=; b=m6RyKAuj0oJSSUny0WFs/c2fG8PWq1Hi1j+/7BvVw36YN0Rn22VhNTpmJQXZrEN9ff siqJ2eFu0TOPXGLuIovHOrQWib5vYICAnR//fWrhxaJYLOgpTxko3E08j2gRE0nC7Irg pqJTP1oM+RqfEESvgaVtjkYNpzc2utUaeDjm+wJ/LRQx4GvgwXaitxKmvolcCCYs/Het XXULi5fXX4Y3ke6H7l/l/PGScfve/b8Tf8vie7E09O7kD//XY572DE/UI00NWkdGNp94 j3kCya3vtvCvu2VuQ5Hg2dVcR5hySlK0CDNXSELtwaBpffv4YxfM1nXusQ7wDfwmtUsI nzOw== 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=VWq4exPTV3YEsenh8c8WWhBa5gzQnyvRuShjrbPxMcY=; b=IhaobxSrXD88EyQlinLGSIJbOtPiyANbLxJJNk/+3lfHwZpbbqnt8N7/y/z3yXd48P 8RsudUlq7hrHTqY3sT8jZHnDsQegkFpz9rAeO9+snysHEX74rjFadj7h+kPGwkWczAl4 99x4Cpi1EGFhy39LeN62bjRgJESYj6xn94u+3+4Y6YP2Nh6YBDspFtGBt+6EHockWTPE hxxPCiZhwSZmhTPxx5thIjOm8TR2Gro7YGC9x1APQgnW9cgUTG0n3/ytPCc7X018Q6Pz piO3NcifpoHCmL797xUDeYvwenAF8a7G0m6VN8TIPK9j6AGqHRJJHe5BXBIlNKq+v+65 LRMg== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39k0djuYywXe0Ha3fXfOK2PYNoIARuFwiNAIYLwbTmOregVBdZKaBz5YbObI/d5hlenwyIZZY/D5HaoDlg== X-Received: by 10.200.40.178 with SMTP id i47mr28311213qti.259.1489330370295; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 07:52:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.55.81.7 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 07:52:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Dionysis Zindros Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 16:52:29 +0200 Message-ID: To: David Vorick , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 15:09:46 +0000 Cc: ashish khandekar Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Solution for blockchain congestion and determination of block size by bitcoin network/protocol itself. 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: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 14:52:52 -0000 Are you aware of Washington Sanchez's BIP 107? It is a proposal similar to yours: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0107.mediawiki On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 4:44 PM, David Vorick via bitcoin-dev wrote: > What, in your appraisal, is the purpose of the block size limit? I think we > will be more able to have a productive discussion around this proposal if we > clear that up first. > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >