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
|
Return-Path: <thomas@thomaszander.se>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8E11259
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 9 Aug 2015 10:32:06 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from manxnetsf05.manx.net (outbound.manx.net [213.137.31.12])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9668889
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 9 Aug 2015 10:32:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from adsl92.39.203.140.manx.net (EHLO coldstorage.localnet)
([92.39.203.140])
by manxnetsf05.manx.net (MOS 4.4.5a-GA FastPath queued)
with ESMTP id EFZ40731; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 11:32:02 +0100 (BST)
From: Thomas Zander <thomas@thomaszander.se>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2015 12:32:01 +0200
Message-ID: <2120838.A7evhxqObN@coldstorage>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.1 (Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CFD5F030-D518-4998-93BD-A19054C54058@gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T16fH+56isq95m4+QWsKwP==tf75ep8ghnEcBoV4OtZJA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGLBAhcfUv0ptwczgCkgwVxo7d=pK4GLowkwV2viqAbq6vRaDQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CFD5F030-D518-4998-93BD-A19054C54058@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mirapoint-Received-SPF: 92.39.203.140 coldstorage.localnet
thomas@thomaszander.se 5 none
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=manxnetsf05.manx.net
X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown,
refid=str=0001.0A0B0204.55C72C23.000D, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000,
reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0,
so=2014-07-29 09:23:55, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32,
mode=multiengine
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0),
refid=str=0001.0A0B0204.55C72C23.000D, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000,
reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0,
so=2014-07-29 09:23:55, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 1d0b4c36cb3b39a7afaf456daeb455b9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process
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: Sun, 09 Aug 2015 10:32:06 -0000
On Saturday 8. August 2015 19.05.29 Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I agree
> There are a lot of difficult technical problems introduced by insufficient
> block space that are best addressed now.
I agree problems for space restrictions should be solved, and the sooner the
better.
What your statement has as a side-effect is that we will run into problems when
the moment of insufficient block space comes *this* year instead of in 5 years.
I can practically guarantee that no proper solutions will be deployed in time
for natural growth of usage to reach always 1Mb full blocks.
Having several more years to make such solutions will be very healthy.
> As well as problems that scale
> will exacerbate like bootstrapping that we should develop solutions for
> first.
Notice that many people here have tried but have been unable to find a relation
between max-blocksize and full node-count.
Also, there are pretty good solutions already, like a bootstrap torrent and
the headers first. In the upcoming release the actual CPU load should also get
better making the actual download much much faster than the 0.9 release.
Or, in other words, these problems have been solved in a large part already,
and more is underway.
I don't expect them to be showstoppers when a the network finally allows bigger
than 1Mb blocks. Natural growth has shown that blocks won't jump in size
significantly in one month anyway. So this scenario still has 6 months or so.
--
Thomas Zander
|
