diff options
| author | Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org> | 2015-08-16 09:52:32 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-08-16 16:52:54 +0000 |
| commit | a468dd6892fa6ccf3e7fbc6bdc96db221a3b6808 (patch) | |
| tree | 3dfae0300be9bb998312d07ba66395c900a866bc | |
| parent | e15c3d3a3e20dc9859f06c1b2f223e4a0e1660e2 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-a468dd6892fa6ccf3e7fbc6bdc96db221a3b6808.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-a468dd6892fa6ccf3e7fbc6bdc96db221a3b6808.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Minimum Block Size
| -rw-r--r-- | 73/da17e7038fec0e5894579b6f939cd38c695460 | 155 |
1 files changed, 155 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/73/da17e7038fec0e5894579b6f939cd38c695460 b/73/da17e7038fec0e5894579b6f939cd38c695460 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..14b57cb0f --- /dev/null +++ b/73/da17e7038fec0e5894579b6f939cd38c695460 @@ -0,0 +1,155 @@ +Return-Path: <mark@friedenbach.org> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75E2F847 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:52:54 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-ig0-f175.google.com (mail-ig0-f175.google.com + [209.85.213.175]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD37FEE + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:52:52 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by igfj19 with SMTP id j19so42234930igf.0 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:52:52 -0700 (PDT) +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=1e100.net; s=20130820; + h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date + :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; + bh=eVFlx748zMZvg4qKzKGUuauV5CN6joUVVRtZEK+5TvA=; + b=gM1rTtGm3Yu2amfEwWpNjj/Zc8JAOBOAm76kkVAAjbYQ0axWTIsexUI2XhunFKRQhw + FGv+nTPFLAGA1EQEkXbghGdkoscY8WRomCyV1x1WFlEzDgWDG8ZDOjb6f71/2Ubo9TEj + cazgj+tTHcTNsLAeIv3KyDR/k4L7rNTsJxUJoMHtPkmVD34Otz893LHzNKHb5bCEaYDO + lbnOY22x0/3Byn0kv9sJwahnIFWMVmACXdNEnwjITVKBocx2aC0VMJIKl0KD9GRJPJ0o + ZptkmYKGM76kMQICblPvJs4JKtTb/u+Kne/Q0TF3sK4JQLw2Fn52o0GEOF8T00Grk40p + NjJg== +X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn9aLKQaKo5BFQNynKLQfXMukTur4Vum/35n1m9lp6RDZ6wZjczl69WdvNm4DJRFLQTKQnA +X-Received: by 10.50.88.8 with SMTP id bc8mr13542545igb.46.1439743972236; Sun, + 16 Aug 2015 09:52:52 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Received: by 10.107.138.14 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:52:32 -0700 (PDT) +X-Originating-IP: [172.56.40.188] +In-Reply-To: <CAG86ZOzEnjMw4xam5oUuuvyfoAps=47j418cZcw9BLs-yUCB2g@mail.gmail.com> +References: <CAG86ZOzEnjMw4xam5oUuuvyfoAps=47j418cZcw9BLs-yUCB2g@mail.gmail.com> +From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org> +Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:52:32 -0700 +Message-ID: <CAOG=w-sEqBpNK3ncJhKVp7h3+HckeFF0WhdDtjh=t6NH+Ok8Nw@mail.gmail.com> +To: Levin Keller <post@levinkeller.de> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0111bea208a3bc051d708446 +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, + RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" + <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Minimum Block Size +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:52:54 -0000 + +--089e0111bea208a3bc051d708446 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 + +Levin, it is a complicated issue for which there isn't an easy answer. Part +of the issue is that "block size" doesn't actually measure resource usage +very reliably. It is possible to support a much higher volume of typical +usage transactions than transactions specifically constructed to cause DoS +issues. But if "block size" is the knob being tweaked, then you must design +for the DoS worst case, not the average/expected use case. + +Additionally, there is an issue of time horizons and what presumed +improvements are made to the client. Bitcoin Core today can barely handle +1MB blocks, but that's an engineering limitation. So are we assuming fixes +that aren't actually deployed yet? Should we raise the block size before +that work is tested and its performance characteristics validated? + +It's a complicated issue without easy answers, and that's why you're not +seeing straightforward statements of "2MB", "8MB", or "20MB" from most of +the developers. + +But that's not to say that people aren't doing anything. There is a +workshop being organized for September 12-13th that will cover much of +these "it's complicated" issues. There will be a follow-on workshop in the +Nov/Dec timeframe in which specific proposals will be discussed. I +encourage you to participate: + +http://scalingbitcoin.org/ + +On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Levin Keller via bitcoin-dev < +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: + +> Hey everyone, +> +> as with the current "max block size" debate I was wondering: Is anyone +> here in favor of a minimum block size (say 2 MB or so)? If so I would be +> interested in an exchange (maybe off-list) of ideas. I am in favor of a +> lower limit and am giving it quite a bit of thought at the moment. +> +> Cheers +> +> Levin +> +> _______________________________________________ +> bitcoin-dev mailing list +> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev +> +> + +--089e0111bea208a3bc051d708446 +Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div>Levin, it is a complicated issue for w= +hich there isn't an easy answer. Part of the issue is that "block = +size" doesn't actually measure resource usage very reliably. It is= + possible to support a much higher volume of typical usage transactions tha= +n transactions specifically constructed to cause DoS issues. But if "b= +lock size" is the knob being tweaked, then you must design for the DoS= + worst case, not the average/expected use case.<br><br></div>Additionally, = +there is an issue of time horizons and what presumed improvements are made = +to the client. Bitcoin Core today can barely handle 1MB blocks, but that= +9;s an engineering limitation. So are we assuming fixes that aren't act= +ually deployed yet? Should we raise the block size before that work is test= +ed and its performance characteristics validated?<br><br></div>It's a c= +omplicated issue without easy answers, and that's why you're not se= +eing straightforward statements of "2MB", "8MB", or &qu= +ot;20MB" from most of the developers.<br><br></div>But that's not = +to say that people aren't doing anything. There is a workshop being org= +anized for September 12-13th that will cover much of these "it's c= +omplicated" issues. There will be a follow-on workshop in the Nov/Dec = +timeframe in which specific proposals will be discussed. I encourage you to= + participate:<br><br></div><a href=3D"http://scalingbitcoin.org/">http://sc= +alingbitcoin.org/</a><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D= +"gmail_quote">On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Levin Keller via bitcoin-dev= + <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.= +org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span>= + wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bor= +der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Hey everyone,<di= +v><br></div><div>as with the current "max block size" debate I wa= +s wondering: Is anyone here in favor of a minimum block size (say 2 MB or s= +o)? If so I would be interested in an exchange (maybe off-list) of ideas. I= + am in favor of a lower limit and am giving it quite a bit of thought at th= +e moment.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font= + color=3D"#888888"><div><br></div><div>Levin</div></font></span></div> +<br>_______________________________________________<br> +bitcoin-dev mailing list<br> +<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.= +linuxfoundation.org</a><br> +<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" = +rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= +man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br> +<br></blockquote></div><br></div> + +--089e0111bea208a3bc051d708446-- + |