📅 Original date posted:2015-08-23
📝 Original message:A power of 2 would be far more efficient here. The key question is how long
of a relative block time do you need? Figure out what the maximum should be
( I don't know what that would be, any ideas?) and then see how many bits
you have left over.
On Aug 23, 2015 7:23 PM, "Jorge Timón" <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Seperately, to Mark and Btcdrank: Adding an extra wrinkel to the
> > discussion has any thought been given to represent one block with more
> > than one increment? This would leave additional space for future
> > signaling, or allow, for example, higher resolution numbers for a
> > sharechain commitement.
>
> No, I don't think anybody thought about this. I just explained this to
> Pieter using "for example, 10 instead of 1".
> He suggested 600 increments so that it is more similar to timestamps.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150823/1db30142/attachment-0001.html>;
Mark Friedenbach [ARCHIVE] /
npub1r3…48d0u
2023-06-07 15:46:52
in reply to nevent1q…h62y
Author Public Key
npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0uPublished at
2023-06-07 15:46:52Event JSON
{
"id": "2b598cde1c44586f4c1742e22dfb7b5f38095cfe48e6d5ace358bbe730e78c09",
"pubkey": "1c61d995949cbfaf14f767784e166bde865c7b8783d7aa3bf0a1d014b70c0069",
"created_at": 1686152812,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6086ec24c7436956a4324b488abdb6aa06edbf1e682d11a0a5b70b6f8e62e6f3",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f9bb88f5e178db99aaa35fe131fa1db39c32c37147058dd69efc8de1160864af",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-23\n📝 Original message:A power of 2 would be far more efficient here. The key question is how long\nof a relative block time do you need? Figure out what the maximum should be\n( I don't know what that would be, any ideas?) and then see how many bits\nyou have left over.\nOn Aug 23, 2015 7:23 PM, \"Jorge Timón\" \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Seperately, to Mark and Btcdrank: Adding an extra wrinkel to the\n\u003e \u003e discussion has any thought been given to represent one block with more\n\u003e \u003e than one increment? This would leave additional space for future\n\u003e \u003e signaling, or allow, for example, higher resolution numbers for a\n\u003e \u003e sharechain commitement.\n\u003e\n\u003e No, I don't think anybody thought about this. I just explained this to\n\u003e Pieter using \"for example, 10 instead of 1\".\n\u003e He suggested 600 increments so that it is more similar to timestamps.\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150823/1db30142/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "4c1d38ff49afe2e6f4ebd44d1a3ae27403fc874631faee88d46fafcbe4a7cc2b1dca1dc1ebc2af3db512be6949ad3c8956ced0cc44f0bf55bddc9fa3347adaf6"
}