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
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
|
Return-Path: <mickeybob@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88411273
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 16:19:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wg0-f50.google.com (mail-wg0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37ADB19B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 16:19:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wgjx7 with SMTP id x7so36770324wgj.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 09:19:05 -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=XFk/jzAWxlFHG9UF+aKk1E7k+AAxbkpl5aQw+rPCs+0=;
b=LNgxwsUq5smZ3Yl7wsxttSf0/boHx9catWisqPQ3RF72GniKgXPwxudmtfRmmqpNsi
LYyairbGqQFqSxSSzz4SBEfD2ktmKKJKqJtHMs/yOmqS1AycL0o1tAdeDmNdOeio0fgI
4vBnQ7yvtNmqZeNcjVk1tfE35KY8lx/IrA+bY53cwg+5OHVg9y0brwd27GkBF3S1pMb3
fncFoOvLc0MQtbvde0TvT3WlxunekjR2fI+O+vum13un5p60ShuE92vKekqVJ0tS+fEs
MCEIC9X0JA6QRgeOSHfBF+koAcURh6Dg3BzudsQc9Ymzl7k27nGm+ujQluTCu293C16u
LRnQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.75.15 with SMTP id y15mr6502945wiv.51.1435421944996;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 09:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.27.10.1 with HTTP; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 09:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1EF70EBC-8BB8-4A93-8591-52B2B0335F6C@petertodd.org>
References: <CALgxB7udA85BWetBGc-RN=72ZtVPK9Q5HW8YRDKA08M38XqJqQ@mail.gmail.com>
<1EF70EBC-8BB8-4A93-8591-52B2B0335F6C@petertodd.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:19:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CALgxB7usetoaNCObhG36TrdYgKuP4TSPPNkGatvim1oWUMxaeQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec54fb2c422672e0519823720
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] A Proposed Compromise to the Block Size Limit
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: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 16:19:07 -0000
--bcaec54fb2c422672e0519823720
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
That test seems like a reasonable suggestion; 840GB is not prohibitive
given today's computing costs. What other than the successful result of
that test would you want to see before agreeing to increase the block size
to 8MB?
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
>
>
> On 27 June 2015 10:39:51 GMT-04:00, Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >Compromise: Can we agree that raising the block size to a static 8MB
> >now
> >with a plan to increase it further should demand necessitate except in
> >the
> >special case above is a reasonable path forward?
>
> It's not a reasonable path forward right now given the lack of testing
> done with 8MB+ blocks, among many other problems. A way to help make that
> appear more reasonable would be to setup a 8MB testnet as I suggested, with
> two years or so of 8MB blocks in history as well as a large UTXO set to
> test performance characteristics.
>
> Of course, that'll be a 840GB download - if that's unreasonable you might
> want to ask why 8MB blocks are reasonable...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQE9BAEBCAAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJVjr9n
> AAoJEMCF8hzn9Lnc47AIAIIwu4maaJs4pAKpK00jQnhPNIQ8LPvijD/8vvyugA1z
> OLxlRrn8zs7JPFbxWOAzK2qzT1RksSd0gbXqWm/Saqk9CAG5LBp7Oq0HAVE23XYt
> 6BvyhjyhYaZjDrv+SZvlSjdl5xfpDNPMIXMi7XblKD9hm1GIUSVIYAOinOSVIy0B
> HlKyn/xc4MaO8DuzQcs0vsNMudVQFLMOLjMWz/7iv41NnB/Ujjzv/6845Z1g7Opf
> d5AfxhPHZixshqav/lF7ly7xQwSZZpoJCyFdtzCNG47EQmFYY9e22uy1KVzS7Zeo
> qYPi3KRx5+vFtHHJMDYG5EIMTwI4l/4+lY/Sd0CFWss=
> =0IOS
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
--bcaec54fb2c422672e0519823720
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>That test seems like a reasonable suggestion; 840GB i=
s not prohibitive given today's computing costs. What other than the su=
ccessful result of that test would you want to see before agreeing to incre=
ase the block size to 8MB?</div><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Peter Todd <span dir=
=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:pete@petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pete@p=
etertodd.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty=
le=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(=
204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNE=
D MESSAGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA256<br>
<span class=3D""><br>
<br>
<br>
On 27 June 2015 10:39:51 GMT-04:00, Michael Naber <<a href=3D"mailto:mic=
keybob@gmail.com">mickeybob@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>Compromise: Can we agree that raising the block size to a static 8MB<br=
>
>now<br>
>with a plan to increase it further should demand necessitate except in<=
br>
>the<br>
>special case above is a reasonable path forward?<br>
<br>
</span>It's not a reasonable path forward right now given the lack of t=
esting done with 8MB+ blocks, among many other problems. A way to help make=
that appear more reasonable would be to setup a 8MB testnet as I suggested=
, with two years or so of 8MB blocks in history as well as a large UTXO set=
to test performance characteristics.<br>
<br>
Of course, that'll be a 840GB download - if that's unreasonable you=
might want to ask why 8MB blocks are reasonable...<br>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
<br>
iQE9BAEBCAAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJVjr9n<br>
AAoJEMCF8hzn9Lnc47AIAIIwu4maaJs4pAKpK00jQnhPNIQ8LPvijD/8vvyugA1z<br>
OLxlRrn8zs7JPFbxWOAzK2qzT1RksSd0gbXqWm/Saqk9CAG5LBp7Oq0HAVE23XYt<br>
6BvyhjyhYaZjDrv+SZvlSjdl5xfpDNPMIXMi7XblKD9hm1GIUSVIYAOinOSVIy0B<br>
HlKyn/xc4MaO8DuzQcs0vsNMudVQFLMOLjMWz/7iv41NnB/Ujjzv/6845Z1g7Opf<br>
d5AfxhPHZixshqav/lF7ly7xQwSZZpoJCyFdtzCNG47EQmFYY9e22uy1KVzS7Zeo<br>
qYPi3KRx5+vFtHHJMDYG5EIMTwI4l/4+lY/Sd0CFWss=3D<br>
=3D0IOS<br>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>
--bcaec54fb2c422672e0519823720--
|
