Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:50:43 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150623205042.GB18677@muck>
References: <CABsx9T2HegqOBqd1jijk1bZBE6N+NH8x6nfwbaoLBACVf8-WBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150623192838.GG30235@muck>
	<CABsx9T2wsc=+seaWs=v5d_kPpC4u-xTnsjuPMO7PYhQN+0-KAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBj0Zk-k7fjams1YWFESDYHHp+r=NeFQAnVgghppNKDGxg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PmA2V3Z32TCmWXqI"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBj0Zk-k7fjams1YWFESDYHHp+r=NeFQAnVgghppNKDGxg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Draft BIP : fixed-schedule block size increase
Precedence: list


--PmA2V3Z32TCmWXqI
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:26:38PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>=20
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Wladimir noted that 'The original presented intention of block size
> >> increase was a one-time "scaling" to grant time for more decentralizing
> >> solutions to develop'
> >>
> >> Comments?
> >>
> >
> > Consensus is that this process is too painful to go through once a year.
> > I agree.
> >
>=20
> If you believe we will need to go through this process once a year, we are
> not talking about a one-time scaling to grant time for more decentralizing
> solutions. It means you think we should keep scaling. I don't disagree
> there - as long as we're talking about scaling as availability of
> bandwidth, storage and processing power increase, there is no reason
> Bitcoin's blockchain can't grow proportionally.
>=20
> However, an initial bump 8 MB and the growth rate afterwards seem more li=
ke
> a no-effectively-limit-ever to me.

In particular, note how this bump is being proposed at a time when
blockchain space demand is so low that transactions usually cost well
under a penny each, a insignificant amount of money for almost all
use-cases.

> I fear that the wish of not wanting to deal with - admittedly - a very ha=
rd
> problem, resulted here in throwing away several protections we currently
> have. And yes, I know you believe 8 MB won't be created immediately. I
> truly, honestly, do not think so either. But I prefer a system where I
> don't need to rely on anyone's guesses for the future.

In that regard Jeff Garzik's proposal of a blocksize increase with a
miner vote feedback mechanism is a huge improvement over Gavin's
proposal.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000008c0be16e152f86ab3a271a13c3f41c56228d72990abf7bd

--PmA2V3Z32TCmWXqI
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQGrBAEBCACVBQJVicagXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw
MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwOGMwYmUxNmUxNTJmODZhYjNhMjcxYTEzYzNmNDFjNTYy
MjhkNzI5OTBhYmY3YmQvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0
ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQwIXyHOf0udzO1gf/R7IAI2dPR8rX5cDJg/VMEEF7
aRP5amZGT4tk/zeV/CyBY0JPcC3JU2GX4NfY+RooD5VJhCzBXU80jH22DaOKyQt8
LIiwTEjwD9oY7Pmuh5uWA3WM2OT86jeRc3Wza1hib9xmU0mOK7ApGLNnhtNcX0sg
dRC+MfJzYFgksCTgbWo+of9LwJOttIh+QlZlRs2LcTJm5Zvg9Hpn7FOXB7HS4DlY
PrWZbMuP8mJQPz16cDtylCeGdYW/z1DgaooUthbiagFTQdV1OTs8y824f4gMWRnk
ePjsUJkrnOp3xcKdHTfzfmZDnyuDYI+Ddgfm/i8vp3tZm8WJwBB96qbt97ZFwg==
=U/59
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--PmA2V3Z32TCmWXqI--