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 1568984 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 14:04:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ob0-f178.google.com (mail-ob0-f178.google.com [209.85.214.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A458F2 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 14:04:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obbhe7 with SMTP id he7so93359808obb.0 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:04:27 -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:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sKia8oo+W/vd8ebxCIPY8dEcaWNJES6pGW72lW8j59I=; b=kJnBtJXwcPj66DsywgtvkB0DQfWPxo/hrPXu47ENlF7TAqbPA4ymkBCU7vTqAR+Lp9 eNlTlWtXsMCYJWDUG4PGb2JMlM7f98e3wogmmwPG9nQ56JMGpARuKBLh+WBuHTuiu53x 39CX8MdunEIXt160qmtAlMpEY7/RjSS1MzV7WqmT2WhMF6KjtOR9NcTWK4qjQ5HXtaOg 39stJQD+GNDLhWGlbohaEqFyE4QA3s9c0l81ixJu9rOL1YDm/kquEIQv31Yy/1DWSgAg 519f8cg+qmiIXqW0bsySlFSJda4sboQ17oMBqPIipz0nUKUZYOCLhPHbkX85cobhGjjd 5HNw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.76.1 with SMTP id g1mr17583641obw.2.1440338667854; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:04:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.225.214 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:04:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:04:27 -0500 Message-ID: From: Bdimych Bdimych To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,URIBL_BLACK autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size possible solution - to set minimum size 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, 23 Aug 2015 14:04:29 -0000 I apologize, I'm not familiar with technical details, may be stupid, only general thoughts: -overlapped block sizes - two blockchains, uncertainty, unpredictable results, trust gets down -non-overlapped - single blockchain, determined growing, everybody knows the schedule what and when will happen --- You wrote "cheated", but why? If it will be possible to fill with zeroes [transactions]+[zeroes] or [transactions]+[miner's dummy transactions] why the second variant will be better for miner? and why it will be not good for other users? With Best Regards Dmitry Bolshakov bdimych@gmail.com On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 1:40 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote: > 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/01031= 7.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 > 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 <=3D blockSize < 2mb >> 2017: 2mb <=3D blockSize < 3mb >> 2018: 3mb <=3D 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