Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C6AD4A5 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2017 21:14:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx.kolabnow.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.41]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C4DD8A for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2017 21:14:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by ext-mx-out001.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CE23477; Sat, 2 Sep 2017 23:14:00 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mykolab.com Received: from mx.kolabnow.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ext-mx-out001.mykolab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AJVccUt6I8tp; Sat, 2 Sep 2017 23:13:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from int-mx001.mykolab.com (unknown [10.9.13.1]) by ext-mx-out001.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E1ACE4; Sat, 2 Sep 2017 23:13:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ext-subm003.mykolab.com (unknown [10.9.6.3]) by int-mx001.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 753F8183; Sat, 2 Sep 2017 23:13:59 +0200 (CEST) From: Tom Zander To: Cserveny Tamas Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2017 23:13:57 +0200 Message-ID: <3416963.LpSpYe5DLS@strawberry> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 02 Sep 2017 21:57:48 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Horizontal scaling of blockchain X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2017 21:14:03 -0000 On Friday, 1 September 2017 20:15:53 CEST Cserveny Tamas wrote: > The usage growth seems to be more of exponential rather than linear. > Sooner or later the block size will need to be 4 mb then 40 mb, then what > is the real limit? Otherwise waiting times and thus the fees will just > grow rapidly. I don't think that it is desirable. The real limit is set by the technology. Just like in 1990 we could not fathom having something like YouTube and high-res video streaming (Netflix), the limits of what is possible continually shifts. This is basically how any successful product has ever grown, I think that it is not just desirable, it is inevitable. -- Tom Zander Blog: https://zander.github.io Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel