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
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D9379A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:18:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-la0-f45.google.com (mail-la0-f45.google.com
[209.85.215.45])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFAA0EA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:18:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by labd1 with SMTP id d1so82839780lab.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:18:45 -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=G36KaQBd/n8711PMkS/8Bir+PVwsZ3MMk8bcY2+s6sM=;
b=MIffbU0MciP+q9JBdQytLaSBD5Z/WdwfsINMjsWytAL9YGpbxcy+BO1vzNR/6iPfzj
GnxN5XdikD/6YXQj+2s0nLKMCqM28/HLNIlBs6NfX1S5EWCiG3h6O6V3/zMd473mt3GM
VUkVmdiLiNIWRG2gdrtVHNwkgFnQoPZdPezNvNAzkTVQ6/65+s0IWOoJGUOsk1Ms5KKA
4sU5anTM9/h4/hXvsc5Fi4zFU1Nht7wobPDD0C3wc4c6Qcgu8K+42LuNlpnibp+fvszb
x6MZ2E/CFmhVAFcAwJDly4oj1aHLxZF8jiPt5YAqCJQvpcnS0gg4b+aVGiosuQbAW48h
4IsA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmFmOkBTTDyF2kNaT/04ldhHWsRk31h3HQldXNPqjg/S/ND+3P+ic0AARdZrbgE1qLbTp3s
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.156.168 with SMTP id wf8mr1760621lbb.114.1439828325431;
Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55D136F1.7010104@gmail.com>
References: <CAG86ZOzEnjMw4xam5oUuuvyfoAps=47j418cZcw9BLs-yUCB2g@mail.gmail.com>
<CADm_WcbEkpdKNF-LCAVDyRpip5W+4tdVq0mn3PzKpZgaZtS4Mw@mail.gmail.com>
<55D136F1.7010104@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:18:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDpNMW=M1B_pMMHfpCyCe031U=5jV8dNvwc8mbaK2Z0dpA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Patrick Strateman <patrick.strateman@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Minimum Block Size
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: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:18:47 -0000
One could think that this could help with things like SPV mining, but
miners can just pay to themselves to follow the minimum size block
rule without risking anything.
As long as they have a singled matured satoshi they can just pay to
themselves with it as many times as they need in the same block.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 3:20 AM, Patrick Strateman via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> The first question to answer here is simple:
>
> What value would there be in requiring a minimum block size?
>
> I see no value.
>
>
> On 08/16/2015 05:30 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> "minimum" an interesting topic.
>
> - Traffic levels may not produce a minimum size block
> - Miners can always collude to produce a lowered maximum block size, a sort
> of minimum maximum
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Levin Keller via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hey everyone,
>>
>> as with the current "max block size" debate I was wondering: Is anyone
>> here in favor of a minimum block size (say 2 MB or so)? If so I would be
>> interested in an exchange (maybe off-list) of ideas. I am in favor of a
>> lower limit and am giving it quite a bit of thought at the moment.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Levin
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
|
