Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z6gVC-0007Dl-5t for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 21 Jun 2015 14:45:42 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of phauna.org designates 208.82.98.102 as permitted sender) client-ip=208.82.98.102; envelope-from=ogunden@phauna.org; helo=peacecow.phauna.org; Received: from phauna.org ([208.82.98.102] helo=peacecow.phauna.org) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z6gVB-0005hu-57 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 21 Jun 2015 14:45:42 +0000 Received: from pool-108-50-150-243.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net ([108.50.150.243] helo=[192.168.50.11]) by peacecow.phauna.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z6gV5-0004gB-Ik for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 21 Jun 2015 09:45:36 -0500 Message-ID: <5586CE0A.2020608@phauna.org> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 10:45:30 -0400 From: Owen Gunden User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: <55828737.6000007@riseup.net> <55831CAB.2080303@jrn.me.uk> <1867667.WXWC1C9quc@crushinator> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam_score: -2.9 X-Spam_score_int: -28 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "peacecow.phauna.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On 06/19/2015 07:48 AM, Brooks Boyd wrote: > Has there been any talk about reducing the time between blocks? If > blocks were allowed to come twice as fast, they would be able to clear > pending transactions in the mempool the same as if the block size > doubled, but would allow mining to stay more decentralized since miners > wouldn't be working on such large-scale blocks? It would still take more > storage space to store the blockchain, though. [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: -3.0 (---) 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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -1.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -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: 1Z6gVB-0005hu-57 Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers 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: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 14:45:42 -0000 On 06/19/2015 07:48 AM, Brooks Boyd wrote: > Has there been any talk about reducing the time between blocks? If > blocks were allowed to come twice as fast, they would be able to clear > pending transactions in the mempool the same as if the block size > doubled, but would allow mining to stay more decentralized since miners > wouldn't be working on such large-scale blocks? It would still take more > storage space to store the blockchain, though. https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg07663.html