On 11/05/2015 04:25 p.m., Leo Wandersleb wrote:
I assume that 1 minute block target will not get any substantial support but
just in case only few people speaking up might be taken as careful
support of
the idea, here's my two cents:
In mining, stale shares depend on delay between
Yes This!
So many people seem hung up on growing the block size! If gaining a higher tps
throughput is the main aim, I think that this proposition to speed up block
creation has merit!
Yes it will lead to an increase in the block chain still due to 1mb ~1 minute
instead of ~10 minute, but the
So if the server pushes new block
header candidates to clients, then the problem boils down to increasing
bandwidth of the servers to achieve a tenfold increase in work
distribution.
Most Stratum pools already do multiple updates of the header every block
period,
bandwidth is really
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 04:03:29AM -0300, Sergio Lerner wrote:
Arguments against reducing the block interval
1. It will encourage centralization, because participants of mining
pools will loose more money because of excessive initial block template
latency, which leads to higher stale shares
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 Antonopoulos says, if any of the miners do anything bad, we
just ban them from mining. Any sort of
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
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 Antonopoulos
The propagation speed gain from having smaller blocks is linear in the size
reduction, down to a small size, after which the delay of the first byte
prevails [1], however the blockchain fork rate increases superlinearly,
giving an overall worse tradeoff. A high blockchain fork rate is a symptom
of
On Monday, May 11, 2015 7:03:29 AM Sergio Lerner wrote:
1. It will encourage centralization, because participants of mining
pools will loose more money because of excessive initial block template
latency, which leads to higher stale shares
When a new block is solved, that information needs
9 matches
Mail list logo
