Block size possible solution - to set minimum size
3 messages, 22 to 23 Aug 2015. Started by Bdimych Bdimych.
Bdimych Bdimych (2), Jorge Timón
Hi, As I understand the main problem of the fork Core<->XT is possibility of double spending: -I run XT and spend my coins -it is written in 8mb block -Core does not accept this block -I run Core and spend my coins again -it is written in 1mb block -but XT accepts this block too so -in the XT blockchain both blocks [8] and [1] contain my coins
I thought that possible solution can be to set minimum block size i.e. 2016: 1mb <= blockSize < 2mb 2017: 2mb <= blockSize < 3mb 2018: 3mb <= blockSize < 4mb etc
Free space could be filled with zeroes and compressed.
That's all, just an idea.
With Best Regards Dmitry Bolshakov bdimych@gmail•com
A minimum block size does nothing to prevent the problems that come from schism hardforks. But also a minimum block size can be trivially cheated as recently explained on this list:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010317.html
"[...] miners can just pay to themselves to follow the minimum size block rule without risking anything. As long as they have a single matured satoshi they can just pay to themselves with it as many times as they need in the same block."
It is good to search previous post before proposing or asking something (it could have been proposed/asked earlier):
http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 1:30 AM, Bdimych Bdimych via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (31 lines)
> Hi, > As I understand the main problem of the fork Core<->XT is possibility > of double spending: > -I run XT and spend my coins > -it is written in 8mb block > -Core does not accept this block > -I run Core and spend my coins again > -it is written in 1mb block > -but XT accepts this block too > so > -in the XT blockchain both blocks [8] and [1] contain my coins > > I thought that possible solution can be to set minimum block size > i.e. > 2016: 1mb <= blockSize < 2mb > 2017: 2mb <= blockSize < 3mb > 2018: 3mb <= blockSize < 4mb > etc > > Free space could be filled with zeroes and compressed. > > That's all, just an idea. > > > With Best Regards > Dmitry Bolshakov > bdimych@gmail•com > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
I apologize, I'm not familiar with technical details, may be stupid, only general thoughts: -overlapped block sizes - two blockchains, uncertainty, unpredictable results, trust gets down -non-overlapped - single blockchain, determined growing, everybody knows the schedule what and when will happen
---
You wrote "cheated", but why? If it will be possible to fill with zeroes [transactions]+[zeroes] or [transactions]+[miner's dummy transactions] why the second variant will be better for miner? and why it will be not good for other users?
With Best Regards Dmitry Bolshakov bdimych@gmail•com
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 1:40 AM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon•cc> wrote:
Quoted text (51 lines)
> A minimum block size does nothing to prevent the problems that come > from schism hardforks. > But also a minimum block size can be trivially cheated as recently > explained on this list: > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010317.html > > "[...] miners can just pay to themselves to follow the minimum size > block rule without risking anything. > As long as they have a single matured satoshi they can just pay to > themselves with it as many times as they need in the same block." > > It is good to search previous post before proposing or asking > something (it could have been proposed/asked earlier): > > http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html > > > On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 1:30 AM, Bdimych Bdimych via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote: >> Hi, >> As I understand the main problem of the fork Core<->XT is possibility >> of double spending: >> -I run XT and spend my coins >> -it is written in 8mb block >> -Core does not accept this block >> -I run Core and spend my coins again >> -it is written in 1mb block >> -but XT accepts this block too >> so >> -in the XT blockchain both blocks [8] and [1] contain my coins >> >> I thought that possible solution can be to set minimum block size >> i.e. >> 2016: 1mb <= blockSize < 2mb >> 2017: 2mb <= blockSize < 3mb >> 2018: 3mb <= blockSize < 4mb >> etc >> >> Free space could be filled with zeroes and compressed. >> >> That's all, just an idea. >> >> >> With Best Regards >> Dmitry Bolshakov >> bdimych@gmail•com >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev