mimblewimble team mailing list archive

[Andrew Poelstra <apoelstra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 02:53:41AM -0600, Tomas Juočepis wrote:
> Hello, grinners,
> 
> what if block size limit of each newly found block would be linearly
> proportional to time elapsed since last block? Stated another way, nodes
> would consider a new block valid only if timestamp delta (new block
> timestamp - last block timestamp) multiplied by some parameter of size/time
> ratio is greater than the size of the new block. It seems that something
> like this could produce a more constant transaction throughput in cases of
> quickly varying applied pow rate ("hash rate") without affecting difficulty
> adjustment.
>

What problem are you trying to solve by adding complexity, complicating the
already-complicated hashcash incentive system, and giving miners even more
discretion over the functioning of the system? 

There has been a huge influx of people into this project over the last month
or two who seem to be proposing changes for changes' sake. There is only one
cryptocurrency out there which has demonstrated an ability to scale without
some catastrophic failure mode and it is also the most conservative.

Mimblewimble does not have anything to do with the blockchain structure. Why
propose drastic changes to it?

-- 
Andrew Poelstra
Mathematics Department, Blockstream
Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net
Web:   https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew

"A goose alone, I suppose, can know the loneliness of geese
 who can never find their peace,
 whether north or south or west or east"
       --Joanna Newsom

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature