Block size possible solution - to set minimum size

Block size possible solution - to set minimum size
2015-08-23  6:40 ` Jorge Timón
  
From: Bdimych Bdimych @ 2015-08-22 23:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev

Hi,
As I understand the main problem of the fork Core<->XT is possibility
of double spending:
-I run XT and spend my coins
-it is written in 8mb block
-Core does not accept this block
-I run Core and spend my coins again
-it is written in 1mb block
-but XT accepts this block too
so
-in the XT blockchain both blocks [8] and [1] contain my coins

I thought that possible solution can be to set minimum block size
i.e.
2016: 1mb <= blockSize < 2mb
2017: 2mb <= blockSize < 3mb
2018: 3mb <= blockSize < 4mb
etc

Free space could be filled with zeroes and compressed.

That's all, just an idea.


With Best Regards
Dmitry Bolshakov
bdimych@gmail•com


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-08-22 23:30 [bitcoin-dev] Block size possible solution - to set minimum size Bdimych Bdimych

  2015-08-23 14:04   ` Bdimych Bdimych
  
From: Jorge Timón @ 2015-08-23  6:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bdimych Bdimych;  Bitcoin Dev

A minimum block size does nothing to prevent the problems that come
from schism hardforks.
But also a minimum block size can be trivially cheated as recently
explained on this list:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010317.html

"[...] miners can just pay to themselves to follow the minimum size
block rule without risking anything.
As long as they have a single matured satoshi they can just pay to
themselves with it as many times as they need in the same block."

It is good to search previous post before proposing or asking
something (it could have been proposed/asked earlier):

http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html


On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 1:30 AM, Bdimych Bdimych via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> As I understand the main problem of the fork Core<->XT is possibility
> of double spending:
> -I run XT and spend my coins
> -it is written in 8mb block
> -Core does not accept this block
> -I run Core and spend my coins again
> -it is written in 1mb block
> -but XT accepts this block too
> so
> -in the XT blockchain both blocks [8] and [1] contain my coins
>
> I thought that possible solution can be to set minimum block size
> i.e.
> 2016: 1mb <= blockSize < 2mb
> 2017: 2mb <= blockSize < 3mb
> 2018: 3mb <= blockSize < 4mb
> etc
>
> Free space could be filled with zeroes and compressed.
>
> That's all, just an idea.
>
>
> With Best Regards
> Dmitry Bolshakov
> bdimych@gmail•com
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-08-23  6:40 ` Jorge Timón

  
From: Bdimych Bdimych @ 2015-08-23 14:04 UTC ( / )
  To: Jorge Timón;  Bitcoin Dev

I apologize, I'm not familiar with technical details, may be stupid,
only general thoughts:
-overlapped block sizes - two blockchains, uncertainty, unpredictable
results, trust gets down
-non-overlapped - single blockchain, determined growing, everybody
knows the schedule what and when will happen

---

You wrote "cheated",
but why?
If it will be possible to fill with zeroes
[transactions]+[zeroes]
or
[transactions]+[miner's dummy transactions]
why the second variant will be better for miner?
and why it will be not good for other users?


With Best Regards
Dmitry Bolshakov
bdimych@gmail•com


On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 1:40 AM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon•cc> wrote:
> A minimum block size does nothing to prevent the problems that come
> from schism hardforks.
> But also a minimum block size can be trivially cheated as recently
> explained on this list:
>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010317.html
>
> "[...] miners can just pay to themselves to follow the minimum size
> block rule without risking anything.
> As long as they have a single matured satoshi they can just pay to
> themselves with it as many times as they need in the same block."
>
> It is good to search previous post before proposing or asking
> something (it could have been proposed/asked earlier):
>
> http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 1:30 AM, Bdimych Bdimych via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> As I understand the main problem of the fork Core<->XT is possibility
>> of double spending:
>> -I run XT and spend my coins
>> -it is written in 8mb block
>> -Core does not accept this block
>> -I run Core and spend my coins again
>> -it is written in 1mb block
>> -but XT accepts this block too
>> so
>> -in the XT blockchain both blocks [8] and [1] contain my coins
>>
>> I thought that possible solution can be to set minimum block size
>> i.e.
>> 2016: 1mb <= blockSize < 2mb
>> 2017: 2mb <= blockSize < 3mb
>> 2018: 3mb <= blockSize < 4mb
>> etc
>>
>> Free space could be filled with zeroes and compressed.
>>
>> That's all, just an idea.
>>
>>
>> With Best Regards
>> Dmitry Bolshakov
>> bdimych@gmail•com
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev