Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CD20F7C for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:43:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail149082.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail149082.authsmtp.co.uk [62.13.149.82]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C281BA9 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:43:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232]) by punt20.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id tBIKhlFq001317; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:43:47 GMT Received: from [25.160.150.171] ([72.143.230.69]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id tBIKhbdp099726 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:43:42 GMT In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 From: Peter Todd Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:43:35 +0000 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n_via_bitcoin-dev?= , Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com> Message-ID: <99EC10C0-CA98-4AA9-B94E-FB6775BAF55B@petertodd.org> X-Server-Quench: 0969038e-a5c8-11e5-829e-00151795d556 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR bgdMdwoUHFAXAgsB AmMbWVReVF57XWQ7 bAhPbAFefEhNXxts WVdMSlVNFUssc2V6 XkxKEhl7fgJEfjB3 ZkVkEHBSWk16dk4o Xx9RRmUbZGY1bX0X UkkNagNUcQZLeRZA PlV6Uj1vNG8XDSg5 AwQ0PjZ0MThBHWxp QgxFLFQZW0sCBTN0 QB5KGDw/VUcBQC4w ZwcnOFNUB0YWL0E+ eVEsEV4VLxIIDwxY Ek0FCj4RLV0GTClj DQ5bUk4CWDxbWjtR CxFgJREACDhVUSkQ GEpARnkA X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1037:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 72.143.230.69/587 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The increase of max block size should be determined by block height instead of block time 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: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:43:54 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 18 December 2015 11:52:19 GMT-08:00, "Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev" wrote: >I agree that nHeight is the simplest option and is my preference. >Another option is to use the median time from the previous block FWIW all these median time based schemes should be using median time past: the point is to use a time that the block creator has no direct control of, while still tying the rule to wall clock time for planning purposes. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQE9BAEBCgAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJWdG/r AAoJEMCF8hzn9Lncz4MH/iYJv6aB9rvfvy1KuSSHAQDQ++6j7Flmk2n8f/S4jt4q 92MZnKDw09HxUJiWvwREi81wHpq4JedgK1Z/+8m3wlK+jaIyWZ7Su+Jm+EqsoOSJ Sx6oisbyFlhVEUAdaG/XOX/K0mqh01NSvGGpoQjHAYzcG3pI03OC4G7Qg4WGeZLx O0yb387DmK/of52JGJcei3TUx0w8Up/GdXDqerLxioH7fhGhtGCj0vyD4LugnNLQ hka5g+hri27YltfaRxncNQ0nZT4rAfgRgRH1Qi3kHnc6ZgRcRjjb36TyrWjZ34eb 9+YDAirFwu8HGmi7lfxh9DDtVjPZCwKal7/rNeRI744= =7f+W -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----