📅 Original date posted:2017-01-02 📝 Original message:On Monday, 2 January 2017 ...

Tom Zander [ARCHIVE] /

npub1mju…xnq7

2023-06-07 17:55:15

in reply to nevent1q…qv0j

📅 Original date posted:2017-01-02
📝 Original message:On Monday, 2 January 2017 21:19:10 CET Luke Dashjr wrote:
> On Monday, January 02, 2017 8:35:40 PM Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > A maximum is needed, yes. But does it have to be part of the protocol?
> > A simple policy which is set by node operators (reject block if greater
> > than X bytes) will solve this just fine, no?
>
> If you reject a block based on a particular condition, that is BY
> DEFINITION part of the consensus protocol, and NOT a policy. The protocol
> is literally the set of rules by which blocks are determined to be valid
> or invalid.
>
> Policies are things that can vary node-to-node without affecting the
> validity judgement of blocks.

Policy is thus expanded to allow an individual node to reject blocks that
are technically speaking valid, just unacceptable to them.

It would be fun to ponder of the effect of that when applied to many nodes.
Many people already have pondered that question and find it intriguing. So
don't reject it out of hand :)
--
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel

Author Public Key

npub1mju50kqcm07heu967fkq6h4kq666xgekc4yrldf7q52xx9vr8jnsrdxnq7

Seen on

wss://relay.nostr.band

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 17:55:15

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "4742779530ebf82948679be4e3b9323e963cb50cefd4f3b7f4ee82306fddbc5c", "pubkey": "dcb947d818dbfd7cf0baf26c0d5eb606b5a32336c5483fb53e05146315833ca7", "created_at": 1686160515, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "b7e914abb7ea7c07e3589db150a0458d594f4db07aa76365b13ea703b475ba29", "", "root" ], [ "e", "72adb465473ba4bbf7625b1de8a45ecdc6d1de4c0181ef0b29169e23e9588be2", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-01-02\n📝 Original message:On Monday, 2 January 2017 21:19:10 CET Luke Dashjr wrote:\n\u003e On Monday, January 02, 2017 8:35:40 PM Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e A maximum is needed, yes. But does it have to be part of the protocol?\n\u003e \u003e A simple policy which is set by node operators (reject block if greater\n\u003e \u003e than X bytes) will solve this just fine, no?\n\u003e \n\u003e If you reject a block based on a particular condition, that is BY\n\u003e DEFINITION part of the consensus protocol, and NOT a policy. The protocol\n\u003e is literally the set of rules by which blocks are determined to be valid\n\u003e or invalid.\n\u003e \n\u003e Policies are things that can vary node-to-node without affecting the\n\u003e validity judgement of blocks.\n\nPolicy is thus expanded to allow an individual node to reject blocks that \nare technically speaking valid, just unacceptable to them.\n\nIt would be fun to ponder of the effect of that when applied to many nodes. \nMany people already have pondered that question and find it intriguing. So \ndon't reject it out of hand :)\n-- \nTom Zander\nBlog: https://zander.github.io\nVlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel", "sig": "c5fc8b711e4395c3b05ec15102e3dd5c2da095aa3f728f1e9b3f450262707ed883e5cbcb2ff62f2f6e114baa18d1790943550d8f211d5919f5adbee90e987ffc" }