Tier Nolan [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: đź“… Original date posted:2015-05-29 đź“ť Original message:On Fri, May 29, 2015 at ...
đź“… Original date posted:2015-05-29
đź“ť Original message:On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Raystonn . <raystonn at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding Tier’s proposal: The lower security you mention for extended
> blocks would delay, possibly forever, the larger blocks maximum block size
> that we want for the entire network. That doesn’t sound like an optimal
> solution.
>
I don't think so. The lower security is the potential centralisation
risk. If you have your money in the "root" chain, then you can watch it.
You can probably also watch it in a 20MB chain.
Full nodes would still verify the entire block (root + extended). It is a
"nuclear option", since you can make any changes you want to the rules for
the extended chain. The only safe guard is that people have to voluntarly
transfer coins to the extended block.
The extended block might have 10-15% of the total bitcoins, but still be
useful, since they would be the ones that move the most. If you want to
store your coins long term, you move them back to the root block where you
can watch them more closely.
It does make things more complex though. Wallets would have to list 2
balances.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150529/27a2d71c/attachment.html>;
đź“ť Original message:On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Raystonn . <raystonn at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding Tier’s proposal: The lower security you mention for extended
> blocks would delay, possibly forever, the larger blocks maximum block size
> that we want for the entire network. That doesn’t sound like an optimal
> solution.
>
I don't think so. The lower security is the potential centralisation
risk. If you have your money in the "root" chain, then you can watch it.
You can probably also watch it in a 20MB chain.
Full nodes would still verify the entire block (root + extended). It is a
"nuclear option", since you can make any changes you want to the rules for
the extended chain. The only safe guard is that people have to voluntarly
transfer coins to the extended block.
The extended block might have 10-15% of the total bitcoins, but still be
useful, since they would be the ones that move the most. If you want to
store your coins long term, you move them back to the root block where you
can watch them more closely.
It does make things more complex though. Wallets would have to list 2
balances.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150529/27a2d71c/attachment.html>;