1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C92F5B8C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 24 Jun 2015 02:43:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail148102.authsmtp.net (outmail148102.authsmtp.net
[62.13.148.102])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A903F4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 24 Jun 2015 02:43:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c237.authsmtp.com (mail-c237.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.237])
by punt16.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5O2hm2s088268;
Wed, 24 Jun 2015 03:43:48 +0100 (BST)
Received: from savin.petertodd.org (75-119-251-161.dsl.teksavvy.com
[75.119.251.161]) (authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5O2hil2055637
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Wed, 24 Jun 2015 03:43:47 +0100 (BST)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 22:43:44 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Filipe Farinha <filipe@ktorn.com>
Message-ID: <20150624024344.GA3647@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <558A0FCB.2040908@ktorn.com>
<CAOG=w-vj8LQjun0u03nWRz1RV7NMw=ALdQkbiQcrOb=cpfWZZg@mail.gmail.com>
<558A14C3.2040908@ktorn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <558A14C3.2040908@ktorn.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: d689de68-1a1a-11e5-9f74-002590a135d3
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aQdMdAYUEkAaAgsB AmMbW1deVF57XWQ7 bA9PbARUfEhLXhtr
VklWR1pVCwQmRRl+ BEZHDhtycgBAe3k+ bUBmWj4PWkxzIRN7
SlNVRGxXeGZhPWUC WRZfcx5UcAFPdx8U a1N6AHBDAzANdhEy
HhM4ODE3eDlSNhEd ZwwINVUVRQ4QHywx DxsFGy4iG1YYXG1w
ZxA3LFcZHU1ZOEE1 OlhpQlMKPn1aEAAb A0hXDyJFO1gHSEIA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1024:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 75.119.251.161/587
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@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Mempool size consensus + dynamic block size
re-targetting
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: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 02:43:57 -0000
--tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:24:03AM +0800, Filipe Farinha wrote:
> On 24/06/2015 10:15, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> >
> >Anyone could lie.
> >
> True.
> What would be the incentive for the majority of transaction
> broadcasting full-nodes to lie about the mempool size?
It might help you to answer the following: If your mempool consensus
idea worked, could you use it to replace proof-of-work? Why? Why not?
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000001256cc4d7dc7b68be627cbbf65f2b7827fb3e2cc41cf2517
--tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=E2EX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT--
|
