From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1U5dmr-0006dJ-6V for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:58:17 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.49; envelope-from=raphfrk@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f49.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f49.google.com ([209.85.215.49]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1U5dmq-0007mW-9H for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:58:17 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f49.google.com with SMTP id fs13so1234200lab.8 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 06:58:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.114.42 with SMTP id jd10mr20467188lab.31.1360767489686; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 06:58:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.64.7 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 06:58:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:58:09 +0000 Message-ID: From: Raph Frank To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (raphfrk[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1U5dmq-0007mW-9H Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Incorporating block validation rule modifications into the block chain X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:58:17 -0000 On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote= : > You misunderstand what BIP_0034 is doing=97 it's not gauging consensus, > it's making sure that the change is safe to enforce. This is a subtle > but important difference. Sounds reasonable. The change in BIP-34 doesn't cause old client to reject the main chain. The increase to the maximum block size would be rejected by old clients, so is different. Adding new opcodes (as long as they act like a NOP on success) also doesn't cause a disagreement about what is the longest chain, in the end. Miners might end up mining chains which are guaranteed to be orphaned at worst. > Bitcoin is not a democracy=97 it quite intentionally uses the consensus > mechanism _only_ the one thing that nodes can not autonomously and > interdependently validate (the ordering of transactions). So, how is max block size to be decided then?