<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2015-06-22&#xA;📝 Original message:As Tier says, the current network message limit is 2MB (reduced from 32MB&#xA;in the... uhh, 0.10? release).&#xA;&#xA;I think keeping the consensus rules distinct from limitations of the p2p&#xA;network makes sense-- we are already seeing different protocols for&#xA;announcing transactions and blocks (Matt&#39;s relay network is, essentially, a&#xA;separate protocol). I could write a separate BIP describing the change to&#xA;the p2p network protocol, but that feels like busy-work to me.&#xA;&#xA;RE: setting the DoS size check farther than 2 hours into the future: the&#xA;block, itself, will be rejected if it has a timestamp more than 2 hours in&#xA;the future. That is already a consensus rule.&#xA;&#xA;RE: what happens if block timestamps are not in chronological order:&#xA;Nothing.&#xA;&#xA;The activation counting happens in block-height-order, so timestamps on all&#xA;but the &#34;activating&#34; block are all that matters.&#xA;&#xA;Code that looks for the activation condition must properly handle re-orgs&#xA;around the activation block, of course.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;RE: testnet parameters:  big blocks can be tested in -regtest mode with&#xA;arbitrary timestamps in the past or future. Testing maximum-8MB-blocks&#xA;mined &#34;in the past&#34; on testnet will just result in a testnet that is even&#xA;more useless for ordinary testing of products or services being developed&#xA;-- part of what makes testnet useful for things like testing transaction&#xA;creation code is it syncs quickly.&#xA;&#xA;That said, I have thought for a while now somebody should take a fresh look&#xA;at the testnet, talk to people who might be customers for a reset testnet&#xA;or testnets (we probably want separate testnets for people testing mining&#xA;and people testing transaction creation, for example), and implement&#xA;testnets designed to make it easy to test what people need testing.&#xA;&#xA;RE: scraping together money to run a few hundred full-load full-nodes:&#xA; hardware is cheap, people are expensive. You seem to expect that companies&#xA;will be willing to invest the time of their people testing something that&#xA;may never happen (8MB of transactions every ten minutes). Maybe they would,&#xA;but most companies are very busy trying to stay in business by attracting&#xA;customers to their products or services. Scaling up is a good problem to&#xA;have, and, in my experience, the way to be successful scaling up is to&#xA;tackle problems as they occur.&#xA;&#xA;Because there&#39;s no use spending a bunch of person-hours hyper-optimizing&#xA;for 8MB blocks stored in MySQL if a year from now you find out your&#xA;customers don&#39;t actually want your product or MySQL 5.11 comes out and is&#xA;100 times faster....&#xA;&#xA;-- &#xA;--&#xA;Gavin Andresen&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150622/72da223e/attachment-0001.html&gt;</html></oembed>