Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C79083D for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:28:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f177.google.com (mail-ig0-f177.google.com [209.85.213.177]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 135E517D for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:28:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igfj19 with SMTP id j19so15275705igf.1 for ; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 09:28:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=g9DjfabwfjObolh1+A1igjLLp9PspOsFxSbM12OBJAE=; b=mTt9slp3uphGAKbsHsw1PZcIG93rG9m5vg3HBV5SLWUlWcOSAF2ITeWHFVukrNF9o5 G/UgUAE/xOA7ClXxFDOGA29vBFa0ZuNOqmYFEjKlRnFQtqUjSHvSdf0DpWIyuHw489IC uwHDaYskxkO2hjyrjAVOcDgpRjSC6BJ84MH5J6h2voeJXow9DAvHDh2qW5eNqI8WwSOk Aij27dhuAuE24yvUokY2ptfbHVVx8oIMifiaab+MejfgC7bRgHxrIlcUqqkZYKYPJaPh 2BZeWhgJy5aJDIDQ3y2x2kelpBR07wLhsSMlRd2pTO2d2K+iFG8g5EzOAa1Nh+oesgpU 1Vew== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.134.226 with SMTP id pn2mr4488964igb.21.1438964927555; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 09:28:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.77.201 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 09:28:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 18:28:47 +0200 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e148d59f147051cbb21d8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 16:28:48 -0000 --047d7b2e148d59f147051cbb21d8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieter Wuille > wrote: > >> I guess my question (and perhaps that's what Jorge is after): do you feel >> that blocks should be increased in response to (or for fear of) such a >> scenario. >> > > I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, and > yes, fear of Bad Things Happening as we run up against the 1MB limit is one > of the reasons. > > I take the opinion of smart engineers who actually do resource planning > and have seen what happens when networks run out of capacity very seriously. > This is a fundamental disagreement then. I believe that the demand is infinite if you don't set a fee minimum (and I don't think we should), and it just takes time for the market to find a way to fill whatever is available - the rest goes into off-chain systems anyway. You will run out of capacity at any size, and acting out of fear of that reality does not improve the system. Whatever size blocks are actually produced, I believe the result will either be something people consider too small to be competitive ("you mean Bitcoin can only do 24 transactions per second?" sounds almost the same as "you mean Bitcoin can only do 3 transactions per second?"), or something that is very centralized in practice, and likely both. > And if so, if that is a reason for increase now, won't it be a reason for >> an increase later as well? It is my impression that your answer is yes, >> that this is why you want to increase the block size quickly and >> significantly, but correct me if I'm wrong. >> > > Sure, it might be a reason for an increase later. Here's my message to > in-the-future Bitcoin engineers: you should consider raising the maximum > block size if needed and you think the benefits of doing so (like increased > adoption or lower transaction fees or increased reliability) outweigh the > costs (like higher operating costs for full-nodes or the disruption caused > by ANY consensus rule change). > In general that sounds reasonable, but it's a dangerous precedent to make technical decisions based on a fear of change of economics... -- Pieter --047d7b2e148d59f147051cbb21d8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Gavin Andresen <g= avinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
=


In general that sounds reasonable, but it's a da= ngerous precedent to make technical decisions based on a fear of change of = economics...

--
Pieter

<= /div>
--047d7b2e148d59f147051cbb21d8--