Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1Yy2RI-00065J-SD for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 28 May 2015 18:21:56 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.217.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.172; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-lb0-f172.google.com; Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com ([209.85.217.172]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Yy2RH-0002R8-G4 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 28 May 2015 18:21:56 +0000 Received: by lbbqq2 with SMTP id qq2so33936801lbb.3 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Thu, 28 May 2015 11:21:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.4.72 with SMTP id i8mr4250559lai.32.1432837309193; Thu, 28 May 2015 11:21:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.90.75 with HTTP; Thu, 28 May 2015 11:21:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBhuHrMHZym8xQ2-dMknR4zdM=ZULcnZ-fcGnKLserDd-A@mail.gmail.com> References: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator> <CABsx9T3-zxCAagAS0megd06xvG5n-3tUL9NUK9TT3vt7XNL9Tg@mail.gmail.com> <CANEZrP3VCaFsW4+gPm2kCJ9z7oVUZYVaeNf=_cJWEWwh4ZxiPQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABsx9T21zjHyO-nh1aSBM3z4Bg015O0rOfYq7=Sy4mf=QxUVQA@mail.gmail.com> <COL131-DS24FC87C7C6622E23F5EF58CDCA0@phx.gbl> <CAPg+sBhuHrMHZym8xQ2-dMknR4zdM=ZULcnZ-fcGnKLserDd-A@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 14:21:48 -0400 Message-ID: <CABsx9T06sk8srz016tfgxcYrn9Ebc33Oj95tK7i4D1i0=+p9rA@mail.gmail.com> From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01494248d5e6f10517286ed3 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gavinandresen[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Yy2RH-0002R8-G4 Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB stepfunction X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 18:21:56 -0000 --089e01494248d5e6f10517286ed3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote: > I personally think the block size should increase, by the way, but only if > we can do it under a policy of doing it after technological growth has been > shown to be sufficient to support it without increased risk. > > Can you be more specific about this? What risks are you worried about? I've tried to cover all that I've heard about in my blog posts about why I think the risks of 20MB blocks are outweighed by the benefits, am I missing something? (blog posts are linked from http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks ) There is the "a sudden jump to a 20MB max might have unforseen consequences" risk that I don't address, but a dynamic increase would fix that. -- -- Gavin Andresen --089e01494248d5e6f10517286ed3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T= hu, May 28, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Pieter Wuille <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D= "mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">pieter.wuille@gmail.com<= /a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:= 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);= border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D""><p dir=3D"ltr">I= personally think the block size should increase, by the way, but only if w= e can do it under a policy of doing it after technological growth has been = shown to be sufficient to support it without increased risk.<br></p></span>= <span class=3D""><font color=3D"#888888"> <p dir=3D"ltr"></p></font></span></blockquote></div><div class=3D"gmail_ext= ra">Can you be more specific about this? What risks are you worried about?<= /div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">I'= ve tried to cover all that I've heard about in my blog posts about why = I think the risks of 20MB blocks are outweighed by the benefits, am I missi= ng something?</div><div>=C2=A0 (blog posts are linked from=C2=A0<a href=3D"= http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks">http://gavinandr= esen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks</a> )</div><div><br></div><div>Th= ere is the "a sudden jump to a 20MB max might have unforseen consequen= ces" risk that I don't address, but a dynamic increase would fix t= hat.</div><div><br></div>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_signature">--<br>Gavin = Andresen<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_signature"><br></div> </div></div> --089e01494248d5e6f10517286ed3--