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 62DEC10E3 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:42:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f48.google.com (mail-vk0-f48.google.com [209.85.213.48]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00C38A4 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:42:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vkao3 with SMTP id o3so76803687vka.2 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 02:42:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc :content-type; bh=cIFy/b/UkWRhIrmiCecltneKRwCSKdeRKolXq/lG0pM=; b=DU+5/0XgUwQzze8uIcXhR79KznyvS7JuN//nMl/9TOnTLNbNt4L7XEn9sGe5iXhtCF XD2VD8tt7/kY+4gjtqrQM3tOPE14eEIM5XphruXEDXHpc9PdR5JozZHc6csLHeUpAFEH SLX+sj73exj6cvSJ8dRWSFXS5M2d3bJHANuVY4BhzxuV1ibfrZktg6x7RZIUjdv9h8xd eW0Bi0i4YNlr505+AKfpjDImfxM77ILcz01pEQyPefBlLzv4SHc2Egv5gpoV+JsiRogs YjSCbBZG4nKlh2tv7K7XWwL8h3VMwVFpxa2o9nqiD/K3+/wuH6BYwQUT466L6hJyH+3N Vr3Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.129.85 with SMTP id c82mr8247206vkd.65.1443346945073; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 02:42:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.103.65.204 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 02:42:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:42:24 +0100 Message-ID: From: Tier Nolan Cc: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11459a40f2eb9b0520b7657a X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MISSING_HEADERS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org 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: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:42:26 -0000 --001a11459a40f2eb9b0520b7657a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 2:39 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Unless the weak block transaction list can be a superset of the block > transaction list size proportional propagation costs are not totally > eliminated. > The POW threshold could be dynamic. The first weak-block that builds on a new block could be forwarded with a smaller target. This reduces the window size until at least one weak block is propagated. The change in threshold could be time based (for the first 30 seconds or so). This would cause a surge of traffic when a new block once a new block has propagated, so perhaps not so good an idea. > As even if the weak block criteria is MUCH lower than the block > criteria (which would become problematic in its own right at some > point) the network will sometimes find blocks when there hasn't been > any weak block priming at all (e.g. all prior priming has made it into > blocks already). > If there is a transaction backlog, then miners could forward merkle branches with transactions in the memory pool with a commitment in the coinbase. --001a11459a40f2eb9b0520b7657a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 2:39 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:=
Unless the weak block transaction list can be a superset of the bloc= k
transaction list size proportional propagation costs are not totally
eliminated.

The POW threshold could be = dynamic.=C2=A0 The first weak-block that builds on a new block could be for= warded with a smaller target.

This reduces=C2=A0 the wind= ow size until at least one weak block is propagated.=C2=A0

The change in threshold could be time based (for the first 30 seconds or= so).=C2=A0 This would cause a surge of traffic when a new block once a new= block has propagated, so perhaps not so good an idea.


As even if the weak block criteria is MUCH lower than the block
criteria (which would become problematic in its own right at some
point) the network will sometimes find blocks when there hasn't been any weak block priming at all (e.g. all prior priming has made it into
blocks already).

If there is a transact= ion backlog, then miners could forward merkle branches with transactions in= the memory pool with a commitment in the coinbase.
--001a11459a40f2eb9b0520b7657a--