From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <tier.nolan@gmail.com> Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 178FDAAC for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:48:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f178.google.com (mail-qk0-f178.google.com [209.85.220.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1284118 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:48:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qkhu186 with SMTP id u186so107881116qkh.0 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 14:48:02 -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=Mjc1zGmFoiDsonsGe92/3SzqRYWJOdijRdSbeY9zRew=; b=VF1C+r4AWwhO6xc5AkJ/Hmqg3PWnbTIXvNTkjNcv0SPL0sjtWH8uM/YdMa+EaX6EdY aNsklFbpAcgmpvkcWlkra9rZR4LEvpMzNEbaZKCsT3jkxHnufvu9kIiFWFs0WZlWtH7U Dy2uXbUgSGfm7/rJLgTz5Xj6LcsUpB7o/v9ajcugrXHB5iuVkidJ9KYloz98dhC5ZT/a VB51nVzLhA34B1kmfhM/GMPp6I0/+Kieli7Pl6PzZgJK7uwotNEBaTnhSmef9s2cIXPN t05yzF3Uww6POD6YE+aomxaED1q6FswNfWYh26O6+DwM8YU9b9GGCLV/i3aIq6sBngeb fhtQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.16.83 with SMTP id a80mr47807494qkh.63.1435009681890; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 14:48:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.85.241 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 14:48:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2FxNEEUx7_ZRf2NpQk1fdqMKtfzccX-duBjOn-ksS0cg@mail.gmail.com> References: <dd09d1e5-57fb-46ef-8bc0-0fdccf9e7abb@me.com> <20150622205420.GA8892@savin.petertodd.org> <CABsx9T2FxNEEUx7_ZRf2NpQk1fdqMKtfzccX-duBjOn-ksS0cg@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 22:48:01 +0100 Message-ID: <CAE-z3OUvuZLvWUVRFLeMA4GXOxEjbwTHBTo903JFhgG_TO0ypQ@mail.gmail.com> From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com> Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1146922a56a3180519223a10 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] Draft BIP : fixed-schedule block size increase X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:48:03 -0000 --001a1146922a56a3180519223a10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote: > That complicates the implementation quite a bit. > I think trying to keep the number of rules that require context to a minimum is a good idea. As pointed out in the BIP, using only the timestamp of the block means that the block limit can be determined purely from the block header. I don't think there is much issue with having a 1MB block following an 8MB block during the activation. This is inherent in using the timestamps. It occurs for every block that has a timestamp lower than its parent, but to a lesser degree. When fees are the main source of income, it does create a slight incentive to use higher timestamps, but that is probably not massive, since it is 2 hours out of the 2 year doubling time. --001a1146922a56a3180519223a10 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On M= on, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Gavin Andresen <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href= =3D"mailto:gavinandresen@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gavinandresen@gmail.c= om</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"marg= in:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1e= x"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><= span class=3D""></span><div>That complicates the implementation quite a bit= .</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think trying to= keep the number of rules that require context to a minimum is a good idea.= =C2=A0 As pointed out in the BIP, using only the timestamp of the block mea= ns that the block limit can be determined purely from the block header.<br>= <br></div><div>I don't think there is much issue with having a 1MB bloc= k following an 8MB block during the activation.<br><br></div><div>This is i= nherent in using the timestamps.=C2=A0 It occurs for every block that has a= timestamp lower than its parent, but to a lesser degree.<br><br></div><div= >When fees are the main source of income, it does create a slight incentive= to use higher timestamps, but that is probably not massive, since it is 2 = hours out of the 2 year doubling time.<br></div></div></div></div> --001a1146922a56a3180519223a10--