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
|
Return-Path: <1240902@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C77D3EF6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 18 Dec 2015 19:17:04 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f173.google.com (mail-io0-f173.google.com
[209.85.223.173])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70B0213C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 18 Dec 2015 19:17:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-io0-f173.google.com with SMTP id 186so101085459iow.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:17:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=negRT5iXg5VPonkY/V+EmKMU2NzywF7pDgUFljl0Cqw=;
b=JvgNR+t/8M6TKJDpvMy8YjWMg9kfuI+ifkVAKDHbMEDdULFcXPQ6Y1XvGqp9KOrzuK
ySuE0digdLQJtQelK6UzToFCVE66c+q3XA53ukUjhYxjACumQCIvt8iZoDTkNG3kEuqb
UFqjf0kS9qDh7Im6yvWyt3Gi8ObZwirV9o+ywaisBaQKqmcuj8ioKiR0HUSAoY/6rgEY
AqTe+tH5Abw+IjjRkJZIEaUpW6cs42gUgciIfUiAfjENqb3XwLq8FN2fh1+cho1rI/br
FdACScy9kyR/V6JmJlieIjglC5l6XhF0gaxXh1KtG0heJkOXTyYr7IeGRQymXJjsuGCJ
iF/A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.167.78 with SMTP id q75mr7215818ioe.36.1450466223864;
Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:17:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.107.4.129 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:17:03 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 03:17:03 +0800
Message-ID: <CAFzgq-xNZmWrdwCDv3twdsqSWk-FyMuLYJjZ_bA42_5Po0mgEg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,
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
Subject: [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 19:17:04 -0000
In many BIPs we have seen, include the latest BIP202, it is the block
time that determine the max block size. From from pool's point of
view, it cannot issue a job with a fixed ntime due to the existence of
ntime roll. It is hard to issue a job with the max block size unknown.
For developers, it is also easier to implement if max block size is a
function of block height instead of time. Block height is also much
more simple and elegant than time.
|
