1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
|
Return-Path: <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0594383D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 18:34:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com
[209.85.212.174])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7462A7C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 18:34:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wibdq8 with SMTP id dq8so25038989wib.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=h92hIPMjT4DoA+3mFlnxHpl5y34tg50U32PuDngH5xs=;
b=fkclhgxvi6rSch20qrgXfZkJn+dA7dA1taMyvBTnJUAnVxz8L/TOUti3ZxzYSkKzw8
wyhQ+KxifSqrAABG3+VfMppFdZphjelD1OPO8ecDiBDCrddISjBnwStUEM2QsYMkDcvE
4ixapv7adBSpg2aOA1FRDapfN7EztPPF/dSLojeF/F3ql2KMbTn9HJVmo4ZICFr1rKfM
VrUqYqYv16OmTxUPmvfrkJI0v68mlR02ygdC0qa8NujT/fESWL307XhSF94Ifpr51vRu
4heLdSr1wcE3sI61ynQ1q2GVR7nXlCtnSSRZvXWBuNa2x12Oj9QdeLrhlV5F0NJEf9l2
mcYw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.100.42 with SMTP id ev10mr4993073wjb.50.1435343671302;
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.137.38 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.137.38 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADm_WcbQog_UCV=JPHyqTRxKbaGY7jedtHE_D8jJSe_thMg05w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBjOj9eXiDG0F6G54SVKkStF_1HRu2wzGqtFF5X_NAWy4w@mail.gmail.com>
<CADm_Wca+ow4pMzN7SyKjsMdFo0wuUerYYjf5xKs5G_2Q2PzMmA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBg=sn7djO_8H16NDg7S7m7_0eTcrgLVofMWQ2ANz+jw9w@mail.gmail.com>
<CADm_WcbQog_UCV=JPHyqTRxKbaGY7jedtHE_D8jJSe_thMg05w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 20:34:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBhrBUSfPdMjbLthLEFD17zBC3LoWf9LvZsOD1Vp0D78BQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160aa48a8a20005196ffd1b
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 18:34:33 -0000
--089e0160aa48a8a20005196ffd1b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> If you wait until the need to increase block size
It is this sentence I disagree with. Why would there be a need? Bitcoin
provides utility at any block size, and potentially more with larger blocks.
But no matter what, I believe the economy will adapt to what is available.
And setting a precedent that increasing the size "because of a need" is
reasonable is to me essentially the same as saying the size should forever
scale to whatever people want.
I believe the most important effect of a limit block size - people deciding
not to use (on chain) Bitcoin transactions, is already happening, and it
will keep happening at any scale.
Either the resulting market is one which can live with high variability in
confirmation times, and blocks will end up being nearly full. Or maybe the
current fill level is what is acceptable, and we don't see much growth
beyond this, only a change in what it is used for.
--
Pieter
--089e0160aa48a8a20005196ffd1b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr">> If you wait until the need to increase block size </p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">It is this sentence I disagree with. Why would there be a ne=
ed? Bitcoin provides utility at any block size, and potentially more with l=
arger blocks.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">But no matter what, I believe the economy will adapt to what=
is available. And setting a precedent that increasing the size "becau=
se of a need" is reasonable is to me essentially the same as saying th=
e size should forever scale to whatever people want.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I believe the most important effect of a limit block size - =
people deciding not to use (on chain) Bitcoin transactions, is already happ=
ening, and it will keep happening at any scale.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Either the resulting market is one which can live with high =
variability in confirmation times, and blocks will end up being nearly full=
. Or maybe the current fill level is what is acceptable, and we don't s=
ee much growth beyond this, only a change in what it is used for.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">-- <br>
Pieter<br>
</p>
--089e0160aa48a8a20005196ffd1b--
|
