From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <bdimych@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0FE57AA
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 22 Aug 2015 23:30:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-oi0-f66.google.com (mail-oi0-f66.google.com
	[209.85.218.66])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50C98FE
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 22 Aug 2015 23:30:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by oieu201 with SMTP id u201so5057401oie.2
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
	bh=Hk+X8yXlot+yYz0IBBIuQ9NoV+cNMQC0p7894DMcBRc=;
	b=uFOaXCIDahtJQdTDdTlGf2wyKDWRCzZl1Mfnai8X6FHMuewkuMHxd9+4/04x1wLlYL
	/yvKnh63bMId/vMcm5Q8yZcY2YOHbuMPY74jKcf4HsCdjlUw7geI5ESHM/p1wkmHyZ6m
	AbuNV47c4k1JGd0bAHwEZlxu4cisXnX0nDRURxKCKSkE2RRi5q4jFMz12sXpbmvfDE/8
	6qRv6chCrsCHOy1aqouFXRq/Rm7Z2lpsFJXBZ8M97xLd7laaDka5TLZR6k654uTDyrvh
	obRffeIV6hCwsNWRmJ7aPVUldmmuHl1Av5774TqXCvZxnr7eZHnUJ+EgNf3oAC2BDeN8
	U7lA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.90.196 with SMTP id o187mr14266317oib.10.1440286232638; 
	Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.225.214 with HTTP; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 16:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 18:30:32 -0500
Message-ID: <CALNn0ZZ5gY6R7gzpLpbNnFecAz35ZqaLx_RNPxx=SoJTAdHDXg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bdimych Bdimych <bdimych@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
	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
Subject: [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 <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: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 23:30:33 -0000

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 <= blockSize < 2mb
2017: 2mb <= blockSize < 3mb
2018: 3mb <= 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