diff options
| author | Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> | 2015-05-31 11:08:12 -0400 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-05-31 15:08:19 +0000 |
| commit | 6868fcd8f6030af38bbcfe9257279357275c5cf5 (patch) | |
| tree | 412c79e385c47f7e2f89bab1a50f0b71f0f77bf2 | |
| parent | 82cffde176bf122055b33aafe04800dbb4d01c97 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-6868fcd8f6030af38bbcfe9257279357275c5cf5.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-6868fcd8f6030af38bbcfe9257279357275c5cf5.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements
| -rw-r--r-- | 18/2139721d92610b11bbf11ca2d950ab77b725a0 | 125 |
1 files changed, 125 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/18/2139721d92610b11bbf11ca2d950ab77b725a0 b/18/2139721d92610b11bbf11ca2d950ab77b725a0 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..fa57e0d55 --- /dev/null +++ b/18/2139721d92610b11bbf11ca2d950ab77b725a0 @@ -0,0 +1,125 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1Yz4qZ-0000BN-H8 + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Sun, 31 May 2015 15:08:19 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com + designates 209.85.215.52 as permitted sender) + client-ip=209.85.215.52; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; + helo=mail-la0-f52.google.com; +Received: from mail-la0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52]) + by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) + (Exim 4.76) id 1Yz4qY-0000Oj-MS + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Sun, 31 May 2015 15:08:19 +0000 +Received: by lagv1 with SMTP id v1so85502419lag.3 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Sun, 31 May 2015 08:08:12 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.112.72.164 with SMTP id e4mr13486888lbv.113.1433084892271; + Sun, 31 May 2015 08:08:12 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by 10.25.90.75 with HTTP; Sun, 31 May 2015 08:08:12 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDr4G7V5OLfiFq0onGNb3HCWHk9K46FtVcLOVetvxiLqRg@mail.gmail.com> +References: <554BE0E1.5030001@bluematt.me> + <CABsx9T2ysKj5HVbN_7_o33fMehs4KH6E_R583Mt_VPC4gDA0LQ@mail.gmail.com> + <5568F567.3050608@bluematt.me> + <CABsx9T3__mHZ_kseRg-w-x2=8v78QJLhe+BWPezv+hpbFCufpw@mail.gmail.com> + <556A1046.50807@bluematt.me> + <CABsx9T3qPiQ+PL3ZNT+QJzw4ALEzKjMjC4=uEKTG+4vVPdXr-g@mail.gmail.com> + <CABm2gDoE5kbE2cnFzZPAOZbHMdXBaZG7pB7c6dovj=1unPentw@mail.gmail.com> + <CABsx9T0SVW9ASBH=Xyet5EKQtjAoJ7nLpAab5_yLQdUo=QpV7w@mail.gmail.com> + <CABm2gDr4G7V5OLfiFq0onGNb3HCWHk9K46FtVcLOVetvxiLqRg@mail.gmail.com> +Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 11:08:12 -0400 +Message-ID: <CABsx9T3_MVw6WBv8b35E0+NdJreRTbHHbweckdO=XZu4LRcOEQ@mail.gmail.com> +From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> +To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2b616efdad905176213df +X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) +X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. + See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. + -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for + sender-domain + 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider + (gavinandresen[at]gmail.com) + -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record + 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message + -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from + author's domain + 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, + not necessarily valid + -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature + 0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address +X-Headers-End: 1Yz4qY-0000Oj-MS +Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 +Precedence: list +List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 15:08:19 -0000 + +--001a11c2b616efdad905176213df +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote= +: + +> Whatever...let's use the current subsidies, the same argument applies, +> it's just 20 + 25 =3D 45 btc per block for miner B vs 27 btc for miner B. +> Miner B would still go out of business, bigger blocks still mean more +> mining and validation centralization +> +Sorry, but that's ridiculous. + +If Miner B is leaving 18BTC per block on the table because they have bad +connectivity, then they need to pay for better connectivity. + +If you are arguing "I should be able to mine on a 56K modem connection from +the middle of the Sahara" then we're going to have to agree to disagree. + +So: what is your specific proposal for minimum requirements for +connectivity to run a full node? The 20MB number comes from estimating +costs to run a full node, and as my back-and-forth to Chang Wung shows, the +costs are not excessive. + +--=20 +-- +Gavin Andresen + +--001a11c2b616efdad905176213df +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 S= +un, May 31, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a hre= +f=3D"mailto:jtimon@jtimon.cc" target=3D"_blank">jtimon@jtimon.cc</a>></s= +pan> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex= +;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr">Whatever...let= +'s use the current subsidies, the same argument applies, it's just = +20 + 25 =3D 45 btc per block for miner B vs 27 btc for miner B.<br> +Miner B would still go out of business, bigger blocks still mean more minin= +g and validation centralization</p></blockquote><div>Sorry, but that's = +ridiculous.</div><div><br></div><div>If Miner B is leaving 18BTC per block = +on the table because they have bad connectivity, then they need to pay for = +better connectivity.</div><div><br></div><div>If you are arguing "I sh= +ould be able to mine on a 56K modem connection from the middle of the Sahar= +a" then we're going to have to agree to disagree.</div><div><br></= +div><div>So: what is your specific proposal for minimum requirements for co= +nnectivity to run a full node? The 20MB number comes from estimating costs = +to run a full node, and as my back-and-forth to Chang Wung shows, the costs= + are not excessive.</div><div>=C2=A0</div></div>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_= +signature">--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></div> +</div></div> + +--001a11c2b616efdad905176213df-- + + |