đź“… Original date posted:2015-05-29
đź“ť Original message:On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Raystonn . <raystonn at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding Tier’s proposal: The lower security you mention for extended
> blocks would delay, possibly forever, the larger blocks maximum block size
> that we want for the entire network. That doesn’t sound like an optimal
> solution.
>
I don't think so. The lower security is the potential centralisation
risk. If you have your money in the "root" chain, then you can watch it.
You can probably also watch it in a 20MB chain.
Full nodes would still verify the entire block (root + extended). It is a
"nuclear option", since you can make any changes you want to the rules for
the extended chain. The only safe guard is that people have to voluntarly
transfer coins to the extended block.
The extended block might have 10-15% of the total bitcoins, but still be
useful, since they would be the ones that move the most. If you want to
store your coins long term, you move them back to the root block where you
can watch them more closely.
It does make things more complex though. Wallets would have to list 2
balances.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150529/27a2d71c/attachment.html>;
Tier Nolan [ARCHIVE] /
npub1g6…sl5wd
2023-06-07 15:34:14
in reply to nevent1q…gk2d
Author Public Key
npub1g6vxlp4e0nyhs2dqxxcryztyf5f5hyuaq93nw4r87zcnv0sdsa0qqsl5wdSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 15:34:14Event JSON
{
"id": "0e8144609238c7fa3c3f5710afbd0a56248aadada1953f2b17438c2cf14678da",
"pubkey": "46986f86b97cc97829a031b03209644d134b939d0163375467f0b1363e0d875e",
"created_at": 1686152054,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"694beae5cf0503117bf68655e21320fb2b7f537c70de07a705defd4a792c1c4c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"82e044c4342b577c4f9729083e4b7fb1d09e74ab99c2c4b8a1af05016be3b31b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3e6baaf01f15cb9383746ee7c1a225175502acbc3234f3e42160ad71d011e092"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-05-29\n📝 Original message:On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Raystonn . \u003craystonn at hotmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Regarding Tier’s proposal: The lower security you mention for extended\n\u003e blocks would delay, possibly forever, the larger blocks maximum block size\n\u003e that we want for the entire network. That doesn’t sound like an optimal\n\u003e solution.\n\u003e\n\nI don't think so. The lower security is the potential centralisation\nrisk. If you have your money in the \"root\" chain, then you can watch it.\nYou can probably also watch it in a 20MB chain.\n\nFull nodes would still verify the entire block (root + extended). It is a\n\"nuclear option\", since you can make any changes you want to the rules for\nthe extended chain. The only safe guard is that people have to voluntarly\ntransfer coins to the extended block.\n\nThe extended block might have 10-15% of the total bitcoins, but still be\nuseful, since they would be the ones that move the most. If you want to\nstore your coins long term, you move them back to the root block where you\ncan watch them more closely.\n\nIt does make things more complex though. Wallets would have to list 2\nbalances.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150529/27a2d71c/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "32b18a05dad150951b233d8442524205d13a4121c33eff5cadb2d96d8f31de87309be2e55229aa47a4e5072bc32dd16146741c7eca7d9fb27955e385e7a50e2c"
}