diff options
| author | Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> | 2015-09-08 13:04:16 -0400 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-09-08 17:04:19 +0000 |
| commit | 970673db894d486d98deba57b25556084df7bf7a (patch) | |
| tree | f90062a8fcd317abb72e7db97157b158b4ca58d8 | |
| parent | 962b257f4c4e7bec38d27963d7d397917dfdb755 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-970673db894d486d98deba57b25556084df7bf7a.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-970673db894d486d98deba57b25556084df7bf7a.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamic limit to the block size - BIP draft discussion
| -rw-r--r-- | c8/d00a450ebb5bda1007ca0d827cd854a2277356 | 124 |
1 files changed, 124 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/c8/d00a450ebb5bda1007ca0d827cd854a2277356 b/c8/d00a450ebb5bda1007ca0d827cd854a2277356 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9374e8265 --- /dev/null +++ b/c8/d00a450ebb5bda1007ca0d827cd854a2277356 @@ -0,0 +1,124 @@ +Return-Path: <gavinandresen@gmail.com> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71CB6BDA + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 8 Sep 2015 17:04:19 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-la0-f45.google.com (mail-la0-f45.google.com + [209.85.215.45]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0544243 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 8 Sep 2015 17:04:18 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by lanb10 with SMTP id b10so73075756lan.3 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 08 Sep 2015 10:04:17 -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=0Q66bDgQxDcSfjXmznhQVHA68VNKuH12IlW3QIyLMGI=; + b=y7V9wldobLd3OHDduLNyCKYzwCaaDKCdpZkHZC51RSpgJRiPJdBnQ1bRrCaBNLTEzI + s+6RI1ArYvYCJqz9XdJr7/fwvB3HBmfBsnC6e4Wwh56I8ZWvhw3/cnx4GfD2+2Y0MEEJ + 2S+10KnsrlPrhkSaD7fDEAteo8oDxGFQRx5W5BLLtAxKmfdIbt+xnrWoXbKIozyWxhAo + VIMxpyafPhGqyiv8xPe29Zd+cHqWU8uiq0Jm681pX8xGWpvWCu3nK836ULs85tJY55FL + znoCSiC4JAM1I7NZ5yYoiA6QUFIIyp5Zxi2+sUqFuBfGipu0rGnLJXv8y0WYi4RdmTms + YkZw== +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.152.43.228 with SMTP id z4mr21301681lal.99.1441731856975; + Tue, 08 Sep 2015 10:04:16 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by 10.25.41.148 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:04:16 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <CAG0bcYw=k_z82buUQ_kApmPgSenNy6FEsdXotLaS4Gn-kZbrKg@mail.gmail.com> +References: <CAG0bcYzzg4yeQvd27PZu5Fqv1ULS3cKeQHaRZ2zPcM3OASw1cg@mail.gmail.com> + <CADJgMztJx1cBFhNOwMgBHJGPmBNPqsTdQbCCjFBmDBSBfTMMUg@mail.gmail.com> + <CAAre=yRawFU_WMdE+ReemscYD33ez1PF6VhU2FmWo2fAEcw_Xw@mail.gmail.com> + <CALqxMTERUFEFgJ4quz2dWLRw9fD3DkBp-6RO4cuvdBGV2MSyhw@mail.gmail.com> + <CAG0bcYzBCsg9xNLGmu4S=PEPjtbd2iBLH52ryswbkRM23OqquA@mail.gmail.com> + <CALqxMTFQhFusR5jkEMvRdxDVLZPzWSW5hUHpXoON-K-+xJjpNA@mail.gmail.com> + <CAG0bcYw=k_z82buUQ_kApmPgSenNy6FEsdXotLaS4Gn-kZbrKg@mail.gmail.com> +Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:04:16 -0400 +Message-ID: <CABsx9T1a5kbtw=SQrdXyp32LF7gA9LMShPMYEefP4arb6SQcHw@mail.gmail.com> +From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> +To: Washington Sanchez <washington.sanchez@gmail.com> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2280c325b92051f3f5b75 +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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamic limit to the block size - BIP draft + discussion +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: Tue, 08 Sep 2015 17:04:19 -0000 + +--001a11c2280c325b92051f3f5b75 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 + +> +> 3) Let me put it another way, I've read that both Gavin and yourself are +> favorable to a dynamic limit on the block size. In your view, what is +> missing from this proposal, or what variables should be adjusted, to get +> the rules to a place where you and other Core developers would seriously +> consider it? +> + +I'm not clear on what problem(s) you're trying to solve. + +If you want blocks to be at least 60% full, then just specify a simple rule +like "maximum block size is 1.0/0.6 = 1.666 times the average block size +over the last N blocks (applied at every block or every 2016 blocks or +whatever, details don't really matter)". + +If you want an upper limit on growth, then just implement a simple rule +like "Absolute maximum block size is 1 megabyte in 2016, 3.45 megabytes in +2017, and increases by a maximum of 3.45 times every year." + +If you want me to take your proposal seriously, you need to justify why 60% +full is a good answer (and why we need a centralized decision on how full +blocks "should" be), and why 3.45 times-per-year is a good answer for +maximum growth (and, again, why we need a centralized decision on that). + +-- +-- +Gavin Andresen + +--001a11c2280c325b92051f3f5b75 +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"><blo= +ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c= +cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>3) Let me put it another w= +ay, I've read that both Gavin and yourself are favorable to a dynamic l= +imit on the block size. In your view, what is missing from this proposal, o= +r what variables should be adjusted, to get the rules to a place where you = +and other Core developers would seriously consider it?</div></div></blockqu= +ote><div><br></div><div>I'm not clear on what problem(s) you're try= +ing to solve.</div><div><br></div><div>If you want blocks to be at least 60= +% full, then just specify a simple rule like "maximum block size is 1.= +0/0.6 =3D 1.666 times the average block size over the last N blocks (applie= +d at every block or every 2016 blocks or whatever, details don't really= + matter)".</div><div><br></div><div>If you want an upper limit on grow= +th, then just implement a simple rule like "Absolute maximum block siz= +e is 1 megabyte in 2016, 3.45 megabytes in 2017, and increases by a maximum= + of 3.45 times every year."</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br>= +</div>If you want me to take your proposal seriously, you need to justify w= +hy 60% full is a good answer (and why we need a centralized decision on how= + full blocks "should" be), and why 3.45 times-per-year is a good = +answer for maximum growth (and, again, why we need a centralized decision o= +n that).<br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_signatu= +re">--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></div> +</div></div> + +--001a11c2280c325b92051f3f5b75-- + |