On Aug 11, 2015 12:11 AM, "Sergio Demian Lerner"
wrote:
> What I'm saying is that this ratio may have improved 20x since miners
began using the TheBlueMatt relay network, so deteriorating the ratio 2x
does not put miners in a unknown future, but in an future which is far
better than the state they
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Pieter Wuille
wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2015 11:19 PM, "Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > b. Reduce the block rate to a half (average 5 minute blocks)
> >
> > Suppose this is a one time hard fork. There no drastic
On Aug 7, 2015 11:19 PM, "Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> b. Reduce the block rate to a half (average 5 minute blocks)
>
> Suppose this is a one time hard fork. There no drastic technical problems
with any of them: "SPV" mining and the relay n
Sergio, you raise an interesting question.
I had seen your message to the list related to this idea before [1],
so I went back to research what the viewpoints and conclusions were,
if any.
I didn't find anything too conclusive, but I did find some persuasive
points by Dave Hudson [2] [3] [4] [5]
Then I would suggest working on payment channel networks. No decrease of
the interblock time will ever compete with the approximately instant time
it takes to validate a microchannel payment.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner <
sergio.d.ler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In some rare o
In some rare occasions in everyday life, what matters is seconds. Like when
paying for parking in the car while some other cars are behind you in the
line. You don't want them to get upset.
I takes me tens of minutes to shop. But once you choose your merchandise
and your payment starts processing,
Actually I gave a cached answer earlier which on further review may need
updating. (Bad Mark!)
I presume by "what's more likely to matter is seconds" you are referencing
point of sale. As you mention yourself, lightning network or green address
style payment escrow obviates the need for short inte
Den 7 aug 2015 23:37 skrev "Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
>
> Mark,
> It took you 3 minutes to respond to my e-mail. And I responded to you 4
minutes later. If you had responded to me in 10 minutes, I would be of out
the office and we wouldn't have
Mark,
It took you 3 minutes to respond to my e-mail. And I responded to you 4
minutes later. If you had responded to me in 10 minutes, I would be of out
the office and we wouldn't have this dialogue. So 5 minutes is a lot of
time.
Obviously this is not a technical response to the technical issues
Because halving the block interval comes with costs to SPV proofs (which
double the number of headers) and mining centralization (doubles the
selfish mining effect of latency) for the questionable benefit of a block
expectation time that is still measured in minutes, not seconds.
Doubling the bloc
What would you do?
a. Double the block size
b. Reduce the block rate to a half (average 5 minute blocks)
Suppose this is a one time hard fork. There no drastic technical problems
with any of them: "SPV" mining and the relay network has shown that block
propagation is not an issue for such as smal
11 matches
Mail list logo
