On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 07:32:22PM +0000, Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote: > > > On Jun 22, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The maximum size shall be 8,000,000 bytes at a timestamp of 2016-01-11 > 00:00:00 UTC (timestamp 1452470400), and shall double every 63,072,000 > seconds (two years, ignoring leap years), until 2036-01-06 00:00:00 UTC > (timestamp 2083190400). The maximum size of blocks in between doublings will > increase linearly based on the block's timestamp. The maximum size of blocks > after 2036-01-06 00:00:00 UTC shall be 8,192,000,000 bytes. > > Since it's possible that block timestamps aren't chronological in order, what > would happen if a block following a size increase trigger is back in the past > before the size increase? Would that block have a lower size restriction > again? Would using block height not be a more stable number to work with?
In the nVersion bits proposal that I co-authored we solved that issue by comparing the timestamp against the median time, which is guaranteed by the protocol rules to monotonically advance. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 0000000000000000138b2613c026e0ed1dbf6f8f193f1c3115bdf540dc22fbf6
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
