📅 Original date posted:2015-06-22
📝 Original message:On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com>
wrote:
> That complicates the implementation quite a bit.
>
I think trying to keep the number of rules that require context to a
minimum is a good idea. As pointed out in the BIP, using only the
timestamp of the block means that the block limit can be determined purely
from the block header.
I don't think there is much issue with having a 1MB block following an 8MB
block during the activation.
This is inherent in using the timestamps. It occurs for every block that
has a timestamp lower than its parent, but to a lesser degree.
When fees are the main source of income, it does create a slight incentive
to use higher timestamps, but that is probably not massive, since it is 2
hours out of the 2 year doubling time.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150622/63c8f1df/attachment.html>;
Tier Nolan [ARCHIVE] /
npub1g6…sl5wd
2023-06-07 15:39:55
in reply to nevent1q…j6f5
Author Public Key
npub1g6vxlp4e0nyhs2dqxxcryztyf5f5hyuaq93nw4r87zcnv0sdsa0qqsl5wdPublished at
2023-06-07 15:39:55Event JSON
{
"id": "0ae2404de542e4bc7fd54f7e85084e7bd4f9d17b770546c3c4f20fae98672e45",
"pubkey": "46986f86b97cc97829a031b03209644d134b939d0163375467f0b1363e0d875e",
"created_at": 1686152395,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"1936c15d372dc9e8a0eaf645dcff207375e90675dbebfadcf82370abc654737d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"2ecc91e9038bd655a40c1d248623603cd01f5786feef65f3572f32ac39fa2c60",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"fc7892eea47289e31dc49660ebe7f00108707eb2ee3b59909accdf0afaa4eb61"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-22\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e That complicates the implementation quite a bit.\n\u003e\n\nI think trying to keep the number of rules that require context to a\nminimum is a good idea. As pointed out in the BIP, using only the\ntimestamp of the block means that the block limit can be determined purely\nfrom the block header.\n\nI don't think there is much issue with having a 1MB block following an 8MB\nblock during the activation.\n\nThis is inherent in using the timestamps. It occurs for every block that\nhas a timestamp lower than its parent, but to a lesser degree.\n\nWhen fees are the main source of income, it does create a slight incentive\nto use higher timestamps, but that is probably not massive, since it is 2\nhours out of the 2 year doubling time.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150622/63c8f1df/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "a813c31abb7f8f6357fc12b8c7f07e43c1962dacf264f89e7e2b90817db913cce1eada69245635f6708b422175d9770185f97e6c889068d18e7f059cbe2b5a00"
}