On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Avoiding this is why I've always previously described this idea as >> merged mined block DAG (with blocks of arbitrary strength) which are >> always efficiently deferentially coded against prior state. A new >> solution (regardless of who creates it) can still be efficiently >> transmitted even if it differs in arbitrary ways (though the >> efficiency is less the more different it is). > > Yup, although I don't get the 'merge mined' bit; the weak blocks are > ephemeral, probably purged out of memory as soon as a few full blocks are > found...
Unless the weak block transaction list can be a superset of the block transaction list size proportional propagation costs are not totally eliminated. As even if the weak block criteria is MUCH lower than the block criteria (which would become problematic in its own right at some point) the network will sometimes find blocks when there hasn't been any weak block priming at all (e.g. all prior priming has made it into blocks already). So if the weak block commitment must be exactly the block commitment you end up having to add a small number of transactions to your block above and beyond the latest well propagated weak-blocks... Could still work, but then creates a pressure to crank up the weak block overhead which could better be avoided. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
