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 F230ABDF for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:19:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f174.google.com (mail-ig0-f174.google.com [209.85.213.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66AD6E5 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:19:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igcse8 with SMTP id se8so38246325igc.1 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 05:19:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=3oWrE681WubhTFYL0d9zPAaDuQoSgQGoT9RtCrSqyf4=; b=fN8026xaShtd3VrfjtcoLLBvUULCvW28qrem6kdIlZtVevXngMtfo9OPeEz1msxV5i QIfpsZCjseyFwbHAArUQs5zHIdgtOCc72AcSUHT34b2F+JMCFDV0OXaSJkJG2v3995ui 8G3wKNOZSgGjdNqPBwnkUpl1bKNTBxSQq6ZYbg8WDQ0SgVKtWsvQmalTePEn1kstfnAc uLzx8ilHulVz1ncDMPkKOHt2ee7eWHu3fvOX6JEkTDl4BVDCw2bzWhNRB5wZUiW3nagK w3fkm8SCpw3y1+yugFxBvIN9/Yo/5C551xWuHotqeEXk3kZG8i15DF3UIsrxE+X9NkCB qOMQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm3eAEVOpxwfsI8Py1gJfMd5JDCAGGGIksivCk4bUO/qKvAJeobTAbMntcDT33Y3eAvyc6+ MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.79.130 with SMTP id j2mr9719239igx.80.1440591569862; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 05:19:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.18.155 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 05:19:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [115.187.36.147] In-Reply-To: References: <20150825201643.GC11083@muck> <1489961.GhSFCGzPRJ@crushinator> <20150825203744.GB3464@muck> <55DCDB98.80004@bitcartel.com> <20150826002958.GA10628@muck> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:49:29 +0530 Message-ID: From: Upal Chakraborty To: Hector Chu Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0112d074c9fb8f051e35dc13 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev , greg@xiph.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap [BIP 1xx - Draft] 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: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:19:31 -0000 --089e0112d074c9fb8f051e35dc13 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Can we please keep this mail chain discussion specific to the proposed draft - https://github.com/UpalChakraborty/bips/blob/master/BIP-DynamicMaxBlockSize.mediawiki ? I understand, voting process is an important subject of discussion. But, that may be discussed in a separate mail chain. On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On 26 August 2015 at 01:29, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > For instance, a very simple toy example that would work is just XORing > your vote with SHA256(the entire blockchain) > > Uh, that would totally not work. > > I think my proposal of using CLTV to lock coins (votes) is better. > Failing a soft-fork to implement that in time, counting votes from the > UTXO set is also ok - the difference between that and CLTV is that it > is not as strong an evidence of commitment. > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --089e0112d074c9fb8f051e35dc13 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Can we please keep this mail chain discussion specific to = the proposed draft -=C2=A0https://github.com/UpalCha= kraborty/bips/blob/master/BIP-DynamicMaxBlockSize.mediawiki ?

<= /div>
I understand, voting process is an important subject of discussio= n. But, that may be discussed in a separate mail chain.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1= 1:58 AM, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists= .linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> For instance, a very simple toy example that would work is just XORing= your vote with SHA256(the entire blockchain)

Uh, that would totally not work.

I think my proposal of using CLTV to lock coins (votes) is better.
Failing a soft-fork to implement that in time, counting votes from the
UTXO set is also ok - the difference between that and CLTV is that it
is not as strong an evidence of commitment.
___________________________________= ____________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--089e0112d074c9fb8f051e35dc13--