MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMZUoK=eb3jgA7Rwt38tvZt0tYk7gRVPc_2=HUWg1L_vaD93uw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201701270107.01092.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAAy62_+1OjF3V5g4wpOyW0KtNGodddJu_cxOfG-f+8LB7D=rPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAy62_JuWMQ=HMmcw8GsQSDM8S+4LJeG1GHw1OdT+mQC3H-DOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<201701270414.18553.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAAy62_LHtrx7k73kznMpPvheA--0T9YiHkjHArf2KK0Qt+ViUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAy62_LeNi1djDmArX0RWW=rD0GJU9eSqCy0o4G9eg3Y7O+0Wg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMZUoKnxqxvPQehdWo1ZaHB-1-od4cHvJRDTmF5x7ty1CdLbUQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMZUoK=eb3jgA7Rwt38tvZt0tYk7gRVPc_2=HUWg1L_vaD93uw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream.io>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 15:34:13 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMZUoKmUH7ah7pnUgLHFtwYacw2=v3rJ0-csJ8thRy=REM92iw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Johnson <andrew.johnson83@gmail.com>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11404b3a9e4b1b0547196307
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Three hardfork-related BIPs
Precedence: list

--001a11404b3a9e4b1b0547196307
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Jan 27, 2017 03:03, "Andrew Johnson via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.
linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

Other researchers have come to the conservative conclusion that we could
handle 4MB blocks today.


I believe this is a mischaracterization of the research conclusions.  The
actual conclusion was that the maximum value for the blocksize that the
network can safely handle (at that time) is some value that is
(conservatively) no more than 4MB.  This is because the research only
studies one aspect of the effect of blocksize on the network at a time and
the true safe value is the minimum of all aspects.  For example, the 4MB
doesn't cover the aspect of quadratic hashing for large transactions in
large blocks.

--001a11404b3a9e4b1b0547196307
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><br><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote">On Jan 27, 2017 03:03, &quot;Andrew Johnson via bitcoin-d=
ev&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" targe=
t=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:</div=
><div class=3D"gmail_quote" dir=3D"auto"><br><blockquote class=3D"m_9040702=
076880917011quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pa=
dding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto"><div dir=3D"auto">Other researchers have =
come to the conservative conclusion that we could handle 4MB blocks today.<=
/div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D=
"auto">I believe this is a mischaracterization of the research conclusions.=
=C2=A0 The actual conclusion was that the maximum value for the blocksize t=
hat the network can safely handle (at that time) is some value that is (con=
servatively) no more than 4MB.=C2=A0 This is because the research only stud=
ies one aspect of the effect of blocksize on the network at a time and the =
true safe value is the minimum of all aspects.=C2=A0 For example, the 4MB d=
oesn&#39;t cover the aspect of quadratic hashing for large transactions in =
large blocks.</div></div>

--001a11404b3a9e4b1b0547196307--