summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorJorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc>2015-06-27 13:04:24 +0200
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2015-06-27 11:04:27 +0000
commit9332818295df51395844321060ea092dd1483759 (patch)
tree9b132ec920bc7de8cc6b260ceb5bacc415d02f4f
parent272edd80765c772238ea2fbdaf090339396fb2a3 (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-9332818295df51395844321060ea092dd1483759.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-9332818295df51395844321060ea092dd1483759.zip
Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks
-rw-r--r--22/274bee7b7dc48e1f81935fb40ae656b3d16e0b88
1 files changed, 88 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/22/274bee7b7dc48e1f81935fb40ae656b3d16e0b b/22/274bee7b7dc48e1f81935fb40ae656b3d16e0b
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..a6dc563e4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/22/274bee7b7dc48e1f81935fb40ae656b3d16e0b
@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
+Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
+ [172.17.192.35])
+ by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0359DB88
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Sat, 27 Jun 2015 11:04:27 +0000 (UTC)
+X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
+Received: from mail-wg0-f52.google.com (mail-wg0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52])
+ by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D231121
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Sat, 27 Jun 2015 11:04:26 +0000 (UTC)
+Received: by wguu7 with SMTP id u7so106372790wgu.3
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Sat, 27 Jun 2015 04:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
+X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
+ d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
+ h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
+ :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
+ bh=ROGBfUP+NV96XjLJ8x1ggFtKF2sgbIUJQJb6EVNfYN0=;
+ b=ipKryAKP0Gqs6reMwolLzuKnR/cCIOD1yPvHnemv+cN0gBxmOYSw3QmuV7V2uY7CGn
+ GVHdf6k9I/db1PAUoUTV9Imdw07Jti5vVqVMYIEawm2qACha3yW1/MZMhgTTI6D9lwac
+ pntcPhA263f35b+BIrir7ClpHiZKqdN/cHrpewy8YvTrB/17X+wsGHVB0H/oAGqi4vw3
+ 1vDZsOMtq8vbpAj2O2oxCnsQs0HJbSzCXvlnoKpEyk/kAtDSLCycShjllFQRFfZa0pNs
+ eDiMgFvoJuvMImoBywRYJ8N8wqviNwAIBulI6BWmNsN/zytnuagKJBazLNnIqzQUYmOG
+ n5Og==
+X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkahALiARwmO7xJV8+uIlOmRCkAOxFkAr8DyqELepKEHpkhh+rHu5Qcx7U8RX5S6uce49uj
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+X-Received: by 10.194.58.7 with SMTP id m7mr10860807wjq.109.1435403064636;
+ Sat, 27 Jun 2015 04:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
+Received: by 10.194.95.168 with HTTP; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 04:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
+In-Reply-To: <20150627102912.06E2641A3E@smtp.hushmail.com>
+References: <CAPg+sBjOj9eXiDG0F6G54SVKkStF_1HRu2wzGqtFF5X_NAWy4w@mail.gmail.com>
+ <20150627074259.GA25420@amethyst.visucore.com>
+ <20150627095501.C59B541A40@smtp.hushmail.com>
+ <20150627100400.GC25420@amethyst.visucore.com>
+ <20150627102912.06E2641A3E@smtp.hushmail.com>
+Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 13:04:24 +0200
+Message-ID: <CABm2gDpnzjph5SKTf+8GWgwe+njS=k2GNm9uL73RC-EV=Y5wug@mail.gmail.com>
+From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
+To: NxtChg <nxtchg@hush.com>
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
+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
+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: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 11:04:27 -0000
+
+On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 12:29 PM, NxtChg <nxtchg@hush.com> wrote:
+>
+> On 6/27/2015 at 1:04 PM, "Wladimir J. van der Laan" <laanwj@gmail.com> wrote:
+>
+>> Then you won't risk the other 'passengers' who don't consent to it.
+>
+> But you can look at it the other way: what about risking the 'passengers' when the plane suddenly doesn't fly anymore?
+>
+> Increasing block limit increases the risk of centralization, but it also keeps the current status quo of blocks not being filled, rather then risking an unknown option of hitting the limit hard.
+
+But that option is not unknown, that's the point of this thread.
+"Doing nothing" would require to fix the mempool to scale with the
+number of unconfirmed transaction. This is something that we will
+eventually have to fix unless the plan is to eventually remove the
+blocksize limit.
+What will happen with full blocks is that fees will likely rise and
+the transactions with bigger fees will get confirmed first. This is
+something that will eventually happen unless the blocksize limit is
+removed before ever being hit.
+What this thread is saying is that this option (the so-called "doing
+nothing" option, which actually requires more work than any of the
+current proposals for increasing the blocksize) is perfectly valid,
+which is in contradiction to a perceived "need to increase the
+blocksize limit soon". Increasing the block size is only an option,
+not a "need". And changing the consensus rules and forcing everybody
+to adapt their software to the changes is certainly not "maintaining
+the status quo", I'm getting tired of hearing that absurd notion.
+