Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-08-23 📝 Original message:On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-08-23
📝 Original message:On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Seperately, to Mark and Btcdrank: Adding an extra wrinkel to the
> discussion has any thought been given to represent one block with more
> than one increment? This would leave additional space for future
> signaling, or allow, for example, higher resolution numbers for a
> sharechain commitement.
No, I don't think anybody thought about this. I just explained this to
Pieter using "for example, 10 instead of 1".
He suggested 600 increments so that it is more similar to timestamps.
📝 Original message:On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Seperately, to Mark and Btcdrank: Adding an extra wrinkel to the
> discussion has any thought been given to represent one block with more
> than one increment? This would leave additional space for future
> signaling, or allow, for example, higher resolution numbers for a
> sharechain commitement.
No, I don't think anybody thought about this. I just explained this to
Pieter using "for example, 10 instead of 1".
He suggested 600 increments so that it is more similar to timestamps.