š
Original date posted:2015-05-08
š Original message:On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 12:03:04PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
> >
> > * Though there are many proposals floating around which could
> > significantly decrease block propagation latency, none of them are
> > implemented today.
>
>
> With a 20mb cap, miners still have the option of the soft limit.
The soft-limit is there miners themselves produce smaller blocks; the
soft-limit does not prevent other miners from producing larger blocks.
As we're talking about ways that other miners can use 20MB blocks to
harm the competition, talking about the soft-limit is irrelevant.
Similarly, as security engineers we must plan for the worst case; as
we've seen before by your campaigns to raise the soft-limit(1) even at a
time when the vast majority of transaction volume was from one user
(SatoshiDice) soft-limits are an extremely weak form of control.
For the proposes of discussing blocksize increase requirements we can
stop talking about the soft-limit.
1) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.0
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000009344ba165781ee352f93d657c8b098c8e518e6011753e59
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150508/b669d9b9/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2ā¦a2np2
2023-06-07 15:33:41
in reply to nevent1qā¦450f
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 15:33:41Event JSON
{
"id": "cf24d4ba552a1dd7fe2052d0240f7c94d6e4474f4e53f8fd5e8b509f860144aa",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686152021,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f8b5d67799444b0b408a010416662bfec521761783201657452331c18514fd28",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"45229028d381954fab5792b3d7e0141aa09a4dd67394116ab6fc60bfb4643aa0",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2015-05-08\nš Original message:On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 12:03:04PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e * Though there are many proposals floating around which could\n\u003e \u003e significantly decrease block propagation latency, none of them are\n\u003e \u003e implemented today.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e With a 20mb cap, miners still have the option of the soft limit.\n\nThe soft-limit is there miners themselves produce smaller blocks; the\nsoft-limit does not prevent other miners from producing larger blocks.\n\nAs we're talking about ways that other miners can use 20MB blocks to\nharm the competition, talking about the soft-limit is irrelevant.\nSimilarly, as security engineers we must plan for the worst case; as\nwe've seen before by your campaigns to raise the soft-limit(1) even at a\ntime when the vast majority of transaction volume was from one user\n(SatoshiDice) soft-limits are an extremely weak form of control.\n\nFor the proposes of discussing blocksize increase requirements we can\nstop talking about the soft-limit.\n\n1) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.0\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n000000000000000009344ba165781ee352f93d657c8b098c8e518e6011753e59\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 650 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150508/b669d9b9/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "6992679c3d0abf32238f5535c73eae4e1424d68b3f58121ce320db84ed674ecd5ec66bcfc8ce6969dc9c13aa938d3e22ee73b638506fb27342443c16d2b0b30c"
}