MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDpwMQzju+Gsoe3qMi60MPr7OAiSuigy3RdA1xh-SwFzbw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T16fH+56isq95m4+QWsKwP==tf75ep8ghnEcBoV4OtZJA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBgOt=qhQVZv5P-4mcD75=L4PKgOfRqhyB6FZdSYQajrwQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T10y6-=c7Qg6jysnf38wRX3NA3wWozxGfE+mEYJvPeqWA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDpwMQzju+Gsoe3qMi60MPr7OAiSuigy3RdA1xh-SwFzbw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:12:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T2aZHe5382_fC7bEG2OFPadS3p0jjaAD8FW7p36XS7tcA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c27f400493b6051cf59221
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process
Precedence: list

--001a11c27f400493b6051cf59221
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:

>
> On Aug 7, 2015 5:55 PM, "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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 o=
ne
> of the reasons.
>
> What are the other 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 serious=
ly.
>
> When "the network runs out of capacity" (when we hit the limit) do we
> expect anything to happen apart from minimum market fees rising (above
> zero)?
> Obviously any consequences of fees rising are included in this concern.
>
It is frustrating to answer questions that we answered months ago,
especially when I linked to these in response to your recent "increase
advocates say that not increasing the max block size will KILL BITCOIN"
false claim:
  http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent
  https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32

Executive summary: when networks get over-saturated, they become
unreliable.  Unreliable is bad.

Unreliable and expensive is extra bad, and that's where we're headed
without an increase to the max block size.

RE: the recent thread about "better deal with that type of thing now rather
than later" :  exactly the same argument can be made about changes needed
to support a larger block size-- "better to do that now than to do that
later."  I don't think either of those arguments are very convincing.


--=20
--
Gavin Andresen

--001a11c27f400493b6051cf59221
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 F=
ri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:jtimon@jtimon.cc" target=3D"_blank">jtimon@jtimon.cc</a>&gt;</sp=
an> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D""><p dir=3D"ltr=
"><br>
On Aug 7, 2015 5:55 PM, &quot;Gavin Andresen&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ga=
vinandresen@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gavinandresen@gmail.com</a>&gt; wr=
ote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, an=
d yes, fear of Bad Things Happening as we run up against the 1MB limit is o=
ne of the reasons.</p>
</span><p dir=3D"ltr">What are the other reasons?</p><span class=3D"">
<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt; I take the opinion of smart engineers who actually do r=
esource planning and have seen what happens when networks run out of capaci=
ty very seriously.</p>
</span><p dir=3D"ltr">When &quot;the network runs out of capacity&quot; (wh=
en we hit the limit) do we expect anything to happen apart from minimum mar=
ket fees rising (above zero)?<br>
Obviously any consequences of fees rising are included in this concern.</p>
</blockquote></div>It is frustrating to answer questions that we answered m=
onths ago, especially when I linked to these in response to your recent &qu=
ot;increase advocates say that not increasing the max block size will KILL =
BITCOIN&quot; false claim:</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">=C2=A0=C2=A0<a h=
ref=3D"http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urge=
nt">http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent<=
/a></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">=C2=A0=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://medium.c=
om/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32">https://medium.com/@octskyward/c=
rash-landing-f5cc19908e32</a></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><di=
v class=3D"gmail_extra">Executive summary: when networks get over-saturated=
, they become unreliable.=C2=A0 Unreliable is bad.</div><div class=3D"gmail=
_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Unreliable and expensive is ex=
tra bad, and that&#39;s where we&#39;re headed without an increase to the m=
ax block size.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmai=
l_extra">RE: the recent thread about &quot;better deal with that type of th=
ing now rather than later&quot; : =C2=A0exactly the same argument can be ma=
de about changes needed to support a larger block size-- &quot;better to do=
 that now than to do that later.&quot; =C2=A0I don&#39;t think either of th=
ose arguments are very convincing.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></di=
v><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_sign=
ature">--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_signature"><br></d=
iv>
</div></div>

--001a11c27f400493b6051cf59221--