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
|
Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F9C5279
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 2 Jan 2017 22:00:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx-out01.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AA6416F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 2 Jan 2017 22:00:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101])
by mx-out01.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AC876031C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 2 Jan 2017 23:00:12 +0100 (CET)
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2017 23:01:08 +0100
Message-ID: <14697942.X052BYpMyZ@cherry>
In-Reply-To: <201701022119.11115.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CAGCNRJoN7u3yvzitH2KSmVty-p0tX9jxWLHPb8uO5CPZmxmoRg@mail.gmail.com>
<1944321.hguq3JoYe1@cherry> <201701022119.11115.luke@dashjr.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 07:09:02 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - 'Block75' - New algorithm
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Mon, 02 Jan 2017 22:00:16 -0000
On Monday, 2 January 2017 21:19:10 CET Luke Dashjr wrote:
> On Monday, January 02, 2017 8:35:40 PM Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > A maximum is needed, yes. But does it have to be part of the protocol?
> > A simple policy which is set by node operators (reject block if greater
> > than X bytes) will solve this just fine, no?
>
> If you reject a block based on a particular condition, that is BY
> DEFINITION part of the consensus protocol, and NOT a policy. The protocol
> is literally the set of rules by which blocks are determined to be valid
> or invalid.
>
> Policies are things that can vary node-to-node without affecting the
> validity judgement of blocks.
Policy is thus expanded to allow an individual node to reject blocks that
are technically speaking valid, just unacceptable to them.
It would be fun to ponder of the effect of that when applied to many nodes.
Many people already have pondered that question and find it intriguing. So
don't reject it out of hand :)
--
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
|
