On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 03:46:57PM -0400, Russell wrote: > On August 2, 2017 2:54:32 PM EDT, Lennart Sorensen via talk <[email protected]> > wrote: > >On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 12:54:05PM -0400, Scott Frederick via talk > >wrote: > >> On 02/08/2017 09:17 AM, Tim Tisdall via talk wrote: > >> > It's "up to" 8MB. The first block was about 2MB and the rest have > >> > been much much smaller: > >https://cash.coin.dance/blocks#blockDetails > >> > >> Not only that the time between blocks is very long (hours), but every > >6 > >> blocks the mining difficulty is adjusted. The target is to have > >Bitcoin > >> cash blocks mined approximately every 10 minutes as with Bitcoin. > >> Initially then, the blocks will be even smaller. > > > >Hmm, seems while block 478559 was 2MB, then some smaller ones, 478571 > >was 4.6MB, so even larger. > > > >No idea what that means though. > > Larger blocks mean lower fee percentages for miners. A miner has to be in > consensus with other miners on the profitability of crunching the numbers on > a block of any given size. > > https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43
OK, I had understood that part. That seems to be the reason for the fork. I just don't know why there was one huge block among a lot of smaller ones. I suppose maybe a lot of stuff just happened in that period. I don't pay much attention to the crypto currencies. (Not nothing, just not much). -- Len Sorensen --- Talk Mailing List [email protected] https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
