On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> I don't think you'll find much support for introducing a mandatory minimum
> block size. It's quite wasteful to "pad" blocks with transactions that the
> miner is just sending back to themself. If you want to solve the block
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
That's fine too. Obviously the variable maximum would work just fine
without a minimum. In fact, with the O(1) propagation proposal, a
minimum number of transactions could be enforced, think - a percentage
of the current mempool. That's actually
I don't think you'll find much support for introducing a mandatory minimum
block size. It's quite wasteful to "pad" blocks with transactions that the
miner is just sending back to themself. If you want to solve the block
propagation issue, I'd recommend instead working on O(1) block propagation.
T
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hey Bitcoiners!
While I am an avid Bitcoin supporter, long-term user, and have done
development work on tools and platforms surrounding Bitcoin, I have
been very busy these past few weeks and haven't had a chance to fully
(or closely) monitor the Bl
