summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/9e/b7b3fd4feb6d1963b8becee5f8a9cc386c5d47
blob: eb021d49552c6ce8b8ff4fe05c3c02daef309510 (plain)
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
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 8CD20F7C
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:43:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail149082.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail149082.authsmtp.co.uk
	[62.13.149.82])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C281BA9
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:43:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232])
	by punt20.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id tBIKhlFq001317;
	Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:43:47 GMT
Received: from [25.160.150.171] ([72.143.230.69]) (authenticated bits=0)
	by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id tBIKhbdp099726
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:43:42 GMT
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDqJgPM1KRRSR3wSEhQ77Oq6P_VVvHwc3Yt4qnkAr7d2nA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFzgq-xNZmWrdwCDv3twdsqSWk-FyMuLYJjZ_bA42_5Po0mgEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDqJgPM1KRRSR3wSEhQ77Oq6P_VVvHwc3Yt4qnkAr7d2nA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:43:35 +0000
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>,
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n_via_bitcoin-dev?=
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <99EC10C0-CA98-4AA9-B94E-FB6775BAF55B@petertodd.org>
X-Server-Quench: 0969038e-a5c8-11e5-829e-00151795d556
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
	http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
	bgdMdwoUHFAXAgsB AmMbWVReVF57XWQ7 bAhPbAFefEhNXxts
	WVdMSlVNFUssc2V6 XkxKEhl7fgJEfjB3 ZkVkEHBSWk16dk4o
	Xx9RRmUbZGY1bX0X UkkNagNUcQZLeRZA PlV6Uj1vNG8XDSg5
	AwQ0PjZ0MThBHWxp QgxFLFQZW0sCBTN0 QB5KGDw/VUcBQC4w
	ZwcnOFNUB0YWL0E+ eVEsEV4VLxIIDwxY Ek0FCj4RLV0GTClj
	DQ5bUk4CWDxbWjtR CxFgJREACDhVUSkQ GEpARnkA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1037:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 72.143.230.69/587
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The increase of max block size should be
	determined by block height instead of block time
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: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:43:54 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512



On 18 December 2015 11:52:19 GMT-08:00, "Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>I agree that nHeight is the simplest option and is my preference.
>Another option is to use the median time from the previous block


FWIW all these median time based schemes should be using median time past: the point is to use a time that the block creator has no direct control of, while still tying the rule to wall clock time for planning purposes.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQE9BAEBCgAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJWdG/r
AAoJEMCF8hzn9Lncz4MH/iYJv6aB9rvfvy1KuSSHAQDQ++6j7Flmk2n8f/S4jt4q
92MZnKDw09HxUJiWvwREi81wHpq4JedgK1Z/+8m3wlK+jaIyWZ7Su+Jm+EqsoOSJ
Sx6oisbyFlhVEUAdaG/XOX/K0mqh01NSvGGpoQjHAYzcG3pI03OC4G7Qg4WGeZLx
O0yb387DmK/of52JGJcei3TUx0w8Up/GdXDqerLxioH7fhGhtGCj0vyD4LugnNLQ
hka5g+hri27YltfaRxncNQ0nZT4rAfgRgRH1Qi3kHnc6ZgRcRjjb36TyrWjZ34eb
9+YDAirFwu8HGmi7lfxh9DDtVjPZCwKal7/rNeRI744=
=7f+W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----