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: <marcel@jamin.net>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2175A103E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 9 Sep 2015 19:00:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-yk0-f181.google.com (mail-yk0-f181.google.com
[209.85.160.181])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7458C3CA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 9 Sep 2015 19:00:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ykdt18 with SMTP id t18so10191486ykd.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 09 Sep 2015 12:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=TMb0EavAGKdCXgOOQOm5ZQFi5rGu3byh1+Gyj6jlnqs=;
b=QV/lQnMWd4jjaroihYtYNtWfXNn4eOjrr4s2DasB8/Fi+ugx3fJSGLhyA3dyiit3J0
b1xatun0ZYnzE+Krbk61uC8W8AkOReQUXRBpRbTTSs6vT7CQLDk1b0CIs6I3R5PrizB1
XtA0xaAMqCsNF2CzarfyTZFa0XPt3EN8YF2oW1svJmDH891TwmeFf/bBJzkzQEnsZXDN
VvIvXJu5U91QXXLXeQohJBRy+YVOOJR8wKZGBoTVvdB247nhbwO2pTB01G24oqTGPvn0
BPJF1gdaJyC6h2zl3mifd0JoQrRsYZrmwxt6APHLWwaD1FrSOx+okS3NEUskVvhOZHQX
Zqqg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmClzZ2FTjGTTHGJlgbmJjh6ppY7cBn7+RqYLmOWoyDTgIe206LL8felNIewQOlglFisXJx
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.129.10.215 with SMTP id 206mr38293990ywk.120.1441825255705;
Wed, 09 Sep 2015 12:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.13.205.6 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 12:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDrsnVEkcq2CPwK4fcJpwHj6ouTSRnk4U2bMBOPvjRuD_w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAUq485B5AoTpRBzf0=KFm-k58Zoz+ns-Y7BXc3JwG87VsDo+g@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDrsnVEkcq2CPwK4fcJpwHj6ouTSRnk4U2bMBOPvjRuD_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 21:00:55 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAUq486GxLw25TW2SV6d8vCCdhY5SEjfdAPCOhV6ta+hoyJY5Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Marcel Jamin <marcel@jamin.net>
To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1142d292320800051f551a3c
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Yet another blocklimit proposal / compromise
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, 09 Sep 2015 19:00:57 -0000
--001a1142d292320800051f551a3c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think the overlap of people who want to run a serious mining operation
and people who are unable to afford a slightly above average internet
connection is infinitesimally small.
2015-09-09 20:51 GMT+02:00 Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc>:
>
> On Sep 9, 2015 8:36 PM, "Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > I propose to:
> >
> > a) assess what blocklimit is currently technically possible without
> driving up costs of running a node up too much. Most systems currently
> running a fullnode probably have some capacity left.
>
> What about the risk of further increasing mining centralization?
>
--001a1142d292320800051f551a3c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">I think the overlap of people who want to run a serious mi=
ning operation and people who are unable to afford a slightly above average=
internet connection is infinitesimally small.<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><b=
r><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2015-09-09 20:51 GMT+02:00 Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <s=
pan dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:jtimon@jtimon.cc" target=3D"_blank">j=
timon@jtimon.cc</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(20=
4,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On Sep 9, 2015 8:36 PM, "Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev" <<a hre=
f=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoi=
n-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> I propose to:<br>
><br>
> a) assess what blocklimit is currently technically possible without dr=
iving up costs of running a node up too much. Most systems currently runnin=
g a fullnode probably have some capacity left.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">What about the risk of further increasing mining centralizat=
ion?<br>
</p>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>
--001a1142d292320800051f551a3c--
|
