Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.212.182 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.212.182; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-wi0-f182.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAE-z3OVmw+0doCe0hmYE6A1D61h0AUh4Mtnf5Fg1e4zQBkpraQ@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>
	<CANEZrP2BaKwhpPgcUHWAHswOmUeFLgEk4ysrn4+73qNzWDJ=yQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T3nCJ-w_v-yEbEE2Ytb+xC65mhYqhoAhoOHw9tkPpG0TA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP1qH+zucYsGrMgnfi99e61Edxaj+xm=u_xYXga1g0WzJQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE-z3OVmw+0doCe0hmYE6A1D61h0AUh4Mtnf5Fg1e4zQBkpraQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 13:57:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0psA7hcJdKdA-r01UEt7ig3O-9vjwBMqKSEq-csu0hPQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d34fa005c9a0517372f00
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step
	function
Precedence: list

--047d7b5d34fa005c9a0517372f00
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> If the plan is a fix once and for all, then that should be changed too.
> It could be set so that it is at least some multiple of the max block size
> allowed.
>

Well, but RAM is not infinite :-) Effectively what these caps are doing is
setting the minimum hardware requirements for running a Bitcoin node.

That's OK by me - I don't think we are actually going to exhaust the
hardware abilities of any reasonable computer any time soon, but still,
having the software recognise the finite nature of a computing machine
doesn't seem unwise.


> That system can send a block of any size.  It would require a change to
> the processing of any merkleblocks received.
>

Not "any" size because, again, the remote node must buffer things up and
have the transaction data actually in memory in order to digest it. But a
much larger size, yes.

However, that's a bigger change.

--047d7b5d34fa005c9a0517372f00
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"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div=
 class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>If the plan is a fix once and for all, then tha=
t should be changed too.=C2=A0 It could be set so that it is at least some =
multiple of the max block size allowed.<br></div></div></div></div></blockq=
uote><div><br></div><div>Well, but RAM is not infinite :-) Effectively what=
 these caps are doing is setting the minimum hardware requirements for runn=
ing a Bitcoin node.</div><div><br></div><div>That&#39;s OK by me - I don=
9;t think we are actually going to exhaust the hardware abilities of any re=
asonable computer any time soon, but still, having the software recognise t=
he finite nature of a computing machine doesn&#39;t seem unwise.</div><div>=
=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"g=
mail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>That system can send a block of=
 any size.=C2=A0 It would require a change to the processing of any merkleb=
locks received.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Not=
 &quot;any&quot; size because, again, the remote node must buffer things up=
 and have the transaction data actually in memory in order to digest it. Bu=
t a much larger size, yes.</div><div><br></div><div>However, that&#39;s a b=
igger change.=C2=A0</div></div></div></div>

--047d7b5d34fa005c9a0517372f00--