Jean-Paul Kogelman [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2015-06-22 š Original message:On Jun 22, 2015, at 11:18 ...
š
Original date posted:2015-06-22
š Original message:On Jun 22, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote:
The maximum size shall be 8,000,000 bytes at a timestamp of 2016-01-11 00:00:00 UTC (timestamp 1452470400), and shall double every 63,072,000 seconds (two years, ignoring leap years), until 2036-01-06 00:00:00 UTC (timestamp 2083190400). The maximum size of blocks in between doublings will increase linearly based on the block's timestamp. The maximum size of blocks after 2036-01-06 00:00:00 UTC shall be 8,192,000,000 bytes.
Ā
Since it's possible that block timestamps aren't chronological in order, what would happen if a block following a size increase trigger is back in the past before the size increase? Would that block have a lower size restriction again? Would using block height not be a more stable number to work with?
jp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150622/2b279abf/attachment.html>;
š Original message:On Jun 22, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote:
The maximum size shall be 8,000,000 bytes at a timestamp of 2016-01-11 00:00:00 UTC (timestamp 1452470400), and shall double every 63,072,000 seconds (two years, ignoring leap years), until 2036-01-06 00:00:00 UTC (timestamp 2083190400). The maximum size of blocks in between doublings will increase linearly based on the block's timestamp. The maximum size of blocks after 2036-01-06 00:00:00 UTC shall be 8,192,000,000 bytes.
Ā
Since it's possible that block timestamps aren't chronological in order, what would happen if a block following a size increase trigger is back in the past before the size increase? Would that block have a lower size restriction again? Would using block height not be a more stable number to work with?
jp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150622/2b279abf/attachment.html>;