Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28E689D for ; Sat, 1 Aug 2015 23:57:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pd0-f180.google.com (mail-pd0-f180.google.com [209.85.192.180]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA7B7EA for ; Sat, 1 Aug 2015 23:57:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pdrg1 with SMTP id g1so58734689pdr.2 for ; Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:57:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=6hFlqXfJxmWnNVpiVr8PtzI7rFf/IHvUGQpVt6m85o4=; b=SWYeIb04NmkCLlLQz+XeEORo2xRRPx5KjSlsP4Lr9KdE7HW1ONO/fxM4ot9vX3L5g1 +UsWa+xihHeeYi1UpeeV8iOPzkuvkNlAVa3Mz1Vp7jTd0xyZ8RZL9ICGM89fXJYu84dt dOrETxmwuNPXSQ874oQWaFYvImmgftHw6Zwovn84uC5MMiGWan/64YtXdGWSkOZn/2v3 i6qtFaDw+wVTeK+oKoDz5NDjyCLzMfYm25MyjY9fNJtMBYQg0vDNdXyYUpSR/bweRy8q RTjoY7I11MeUlgEioVChSRqRnLmFD0sfRYTMzbhnr8mbh7T7L3KZoFW247M6N22zDEgi qzug== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmK+UgP6sI+NR/bUc8Nc1i+535Uqm+6ytOBTjtNa0XwrdvGmO5RYcUiwcjorhL4VZSD2biS X-Received: by 10.70.103.145 with SMTP id fw17mr22236947pdb.1.1438473445426; Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:57:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net. [99.8.65.117]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id hk4sm3205743pbb.80.2015.08.01.16.57.23 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:57:24 -0700 (PDT) To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <20150731083943.Horde.68uT9J78H_PdIgIwQP5frA1@server47.web-hosting.com> From: Tom Harding X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <55BD5CE4.80703@thinlink.com> Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 16:57:24 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A compromise between BIP101 and Pieter's proposal 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: Sat, 01 Aug 2015 23:57:26 -0000 On 8/1/2015 1:45 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Regarding "reasonable", I have a theory. What if we would have had 8 > MB blocks from the start? My guess is that some more people would have > decided to run their high-transaction-rate use cases on chain, that > we'd regularly see 4-6 MB blocks, You've proposed scaling the cap based on technology growth. There's still a cap to stop bad things from happening. Once that is done, why worry so much about whether the uses are efficient? Let people work in the space created. Let them figure out how to make good things happen in the application space.