MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150630162526.GA8479@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <CALgxB7uvtKCNM-nH+aqqPa4KNf5O6Gx4GmgZY7Oq8=A24wCrfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5592C0A3.8050008@mail.bihthai.net>
	<20150630162526.GA8479@savin.petertodd.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:35:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CALgxB7sPcRT5wgsEb2BkfvPjN98uiea6fe+JehCAW1BJUpUPEA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04447e1d549c990519becaa2
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size increase oppositionists: please
 clearly define what you need done to increase block size to a static 8MB,
 and help do it
Precedence: list

--f46d04447e1d549c990519becaa2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Re: Why bother doubling capacity? So that we could have 2x more network
participants of course.

Re: No clear way to scaling beyond that: Computers are getting more capable
aren't they? We'll increase capacity along with hardware.

It's a good thing to scale the network if technology permits it. How can
you argue with that?


On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:15:31PM +0700, Venzen Khaosan wrote:
> > > Do what's best for Bitcoin and define what needs to get done to
> > > agree to a simple block size increase to a static 8MB.
> >
> > And this then leads back to the core issue: if an 8MB blocksize
> > excludes many on this list from testnet, then the proposed 8MB blocks
> > will exclude a lot of mainnet participants (miners) and degrade the
> > quality of diversity and decentralization.
> >
> > How about testing at double the capacity: 2MB?
>
> Which of course raises another issue: if that was the plan, then all you
> can do is double capacity, with no clear way to scaling beyond that.
> Why bother?
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 00000000000000001599522de3e8ed28f0189ddccfa1d6db5eb380cacffc79d7
>

--f46d04447e1d549c990519becaa2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Re: Why bother doubling capacity? So that we could have 2x=
 more network participants of course.<div><br></div><div>Re: No clear way t=
o scaling beyond that: Computers are getting more capable aren&#39;t they? =
We&#39;ll increase capacity along with hardware.</div><div><br></div><div>I=
t&#39;s a good thing to scale the network if technology permits it. How can=
 you argue with that?<br></div><div><br></div><div><div><div class=3D"gmail=
_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Pe=
ter Todd <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:pete@petertodd.org" target=
=3D"_blank">pete@petertodd.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;bo=
rder-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">=
<span class=3D"">On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:15:31PM +0700, Venzen Khaosan w=
rote:<br>
&gt; &gt; Do what&#39;s best for Bitcoin and define what needs to get done =
to<br>
&gt; &gt; agree to a simple block size increase to a static 8MB.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; And this then leads back to the core issue: if an 8MB blocksize<br>
&gt; excludes many on this list from testnet, then the proposed 8MB blocks<=
br>
&gt; will exclude a lot of mainnet participants (miners) and degrade the<br=
>
&gt; quality of diversity and decentralization.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; How about testing at double the capacity: 2MB?<br>
<br>
</span>Which of course raises another issue: if that was the plan, then all=
 you<br>
can do is double capacity, with no clear way to scaling beyond that.<br>
Why bother?<br>
<span class=3D""><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
&#39;peter&#39;[:-1]@<a href=3D"http://petertodd.org" rel=3D"noreferrer" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">petertodd.org</a><br>
00000000000000001599522de3e8ed28f0189ddccfa1d6db5eb380cacffc79d7<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>

--f46d04447e1d549c990519becaa2--