[Bitcoin-development] Removing transaction data from blocks

2015-05-08 Thread Arne Brutschy

At DevCore London, Gavin mentioned the idea that we could get rid of 
sending full blocks. Instead, newly minted blocks would only be 
distributed as block headers plus all hashes of the transactions 
included in the block. The assumption would be that nodes have already 
the majority of these transactions in their mempool.

The advantages are clear: it's more efficient, as we would send 
transactions only once over the network, and it's fast as the resulting 
blocks would be small. Moreover, we would get rid of the blocksize limit 
for a long time.

Unfortunately, I am too ignorant of bitcoin core's internals to judge 
the changes required to make this happen. (I guess we'd require a new 
block format and a way to bulk-request missing transactions.)

However, I'm curious to hear what others with a better grasp of bitcoin 
core's internals have to say about it.


One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud 
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
Bitcoin-development mailing list

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bits: Unit of account

2014-04-20 Thread Arne Brutschy

 While SI units are great for people well versed in them, there is a
 very good reason people aren't asking for 100 micro dollars in change.
 The average person is not going to be confident that the prefix they
 are using is the correct one, people WILL send 1000x more or less than
 intended if we go down this road, and these mistakes will happen
 frequently. Labeling should be easy enough for kindergarten kids.

Agree - but why do you propose not only a new label but also a different

Also, everybody in the metric world is used to the milli- prefix due to
meters and millimeters. It's not such a stretch to expect people to
master that; but I agree that most people would struggle with microbitcoins.

 I propose that users are offered a preference to denominate the
 Bitcoin currency in a unit called a bit. Where one bitcoin (BTC)
 equals one million bits (bits) and one bit equals 100 satoshis.

There have been many proposals for more or less arbitrary subunits. What
would be the merit of your proposal? I don't really follow the reasoning
that it's better if it's uncommon for everyone rather than just uncommon
for people not used to metric units.

Regarding the label of a bit: I have to agree with the others that bit
is heavily overused as a unit, but I am a computer scientist, so I don't
have the average joe's perspective on this. I find it weird to use as
it's already in use in English - a bit of work etc

I don't really see the advantage of a bit - it is part of bitcoin
and it's short, but that's about it. I think we are free to pick
anything we want for a label, so why not avoid ambiguities?

See this thread for many creative ideas for labels (and another
arbitrary subunit proposal:


Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
Graph Databases is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their
applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
Bitcoin-development mailing list