summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/d9/e74bca086b74839fb14dcc28f279cb28b32fc5
blob: 1aa2ffa775cda2b0f1fbd36f7a4bcda8771fcc5e (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
Return-Path: <thomas@thomaszander.se>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAA04491
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 30 Jul 2015 20:20:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from pmx.vmail.no (pmx.vmail.no [193.75.16.11])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F30D7ED
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 30 Jul 2015 20:20:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pmx.vmail.no (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (pmx.isp.as2116.net) with SMTP id 2A4BA5FA9E;
	Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:20:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtp.bluecom.no (smtp.bluecom.no [193.75.75.28])
	by pmx.vmail.no (pmx.isp.as2116.net) with ESMTP id ED2E05F13D;
	Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:20:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from coldstorage.localnet (unknown [81.191.185.32])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.bluecom.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D52D31F54B;
	Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:20:44 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Zander <thomas@thomaszander.se>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
	Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:20:43 +0200
Message-ID: <25710699.lX8S1tS4UG@coldstorage>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.1 (Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBj-wA1DMrwkQRWnzQoB5NR-q=2-5=WDAAUYfSpXRZSTqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBj-wA1DMrwkQRWnzQoB5NR-q=2-5=WDAAUYfSpXRZSTqw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size following technological growth
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: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 20:20:47 -0000

On Thursday 30. July 2015 16.25.02 Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> here is a proposal for long-term scalability I've been working on:
> https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6
> 
> Some things are not included yet, such as a testnet whose size runs ahead
> of the main chain, and the inclusion of Gavin's more accurate sigop
> checking after the hard fork.
> 
> Comments?


Maybe this part could use a bit more rationale, it looks like its a sudden and 
unexplained.

>  No hard forking change that relaxes the block size limit can be guaranteed
>  to provide enough space for every possible demand - or even any particular
>  demand - unless strong centralization of the mining ecosystem is expected.
-- 
Thomas Zander