Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

> On 31 May 2015, at 13:52, Gavin Andresen wrote: > > On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Chun Wang <1240...@gmail.com > > wrote: > If someone propagate a 20MB block, it will take at best 6 seconds for > us to receive to verify it at current configuration, result of one >

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives

I think proof-of-idle had a potentially serious problem when I last looked at it. The risk is that a largish miner can use everyone else's idle time to construct a very long chain; it's also easy enough for them to make it appear to be the work of a large number of distinct miners. Given that th

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reducing the block rate instead of increasing the maximum block size

> On 11 May 2015, at 12:10, insecurity@national.shitposting.agency wrote: > > On 2015-05-11 10:34, Peter Todd wrote: >> How do you see that blacklisting actually being done? > > Same way ghash.io was banned from the network when used Finney attacks > against BetCoin Dice. > > As Andreas Antonop

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reducing the block rate instead of increasing the maximum block size

I proposed the same thing last year (there's a video of the presentation I was giving somewhere around). My intuition was that this would require slowly reducing the inter-block time, probably by step reductions at particular block heights. Having had almost a year to think about it some more t

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase

> On 7 May 2015, at 11:52, Jorge Timón wrote: > > On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: >> I observed to Wladimir and Gavin in private that this timeline meant a >> change to the block size was unlikely to get into 0.11, leaving only 0.12, >> which would give everyone only a few