MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDo6bpWst-8=pr4+et+jrwNX5bt5CwSTsm5OSj1pncayjA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBj-wA1DMrwkQRWnzQoB5NR-q=2-5=WDAAUYfSpXRZSTqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T1NqBX9Tr8vRCtCeri76e0wrtkvRhEPyG9Advv_3Uqxng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBjwVxYTOn3+bwahHGSGpBh5BCh5b4OOFkw_2x97YZSFPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+w+GKS_wDDgf=HjPgD5QZ_wdTRg7i_oYUgBRmh9HpufETAP=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDqvpWdHdjo1OBzbw-6ivu5DEGcfvK8duc3-KAjsSeWapA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+w+GKRPPcgCO0pBP2PjKGU49tWuBoF1vRJzY+4fWn71HOVDPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDqV1NdHJZBmUWX3AxVYy6ErU7AB-wsWgGzbiTL1twdq6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+w+GKTLBWj6b4ppwrmnXb_gybYFcrX7haLBSdCnMaijy2An4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDpWPhYNh=g-ZXCsfe-aPq=N6NKSWKP9kr-KtPVrWAxB7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAO2FKHsczkwwqO87cJFtxBp9JE=vf=GcxLx37GpRUkPq8VGHQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDpp5+hkHmd6op6PPW658siKoEMRDfTWiEHHM7vJSLDhyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+BnGuFNOjzLaiPPnUSi-rkU94UMgmP30Si8N3oBSYG0q8j-_w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDoNbhc1=kgc0F+wSm33hTmRmmptk-XcaZxsm=6iJkWu=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T22KUcbRb4ZfRDikbxK05pqWY1=uvYo10toWA-JwGa-PQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDo6bpWst-8=pr4+et+jrwNX5bt5CwSTsm5OSj1pncayjA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 12:03:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T3ARTAV58LYSr40VJsttO5kAtLxMDMZwkKH+ztXYw13mg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c27f40b77067051ca6aa9c
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size following technological growth
Precedence: list

--001a11c27f40b77067051ca6aa9c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:

> 1) If "not now" when will it be a good time to let fees rise above zero?
>

Fees are already above zero. See
http://gavinandresen.ninja/the-myth-of-not-full-blocks


> 2) When will you consider a size to be too dangerous for centralization?
> In other words, why 20 GB would have been safe but 21 GB wouldn't have
> been (or the respective maximums and respective +1 for each block
> increase proposal)?
>

http://gavinandresen.ninja/does-more-transactions-necessarily-mean-more-cen=
tralized

3) Does this mean that you would be in favor of completely removing
> the consensus rule that limits mining centralization by imposing an
> artificial (like any other consensus rule) block size maximum?
>

I don't believe that the maximum block size has much at all to do with
mining centralization, so I don't accept the premise of the question.

--=20
--
Gavin Andresen

--001a11c27f40b77067051ca6aa9c
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 T=
hu, Aug 6, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:jtimon@jtimon.cc" target=3D"_blank">jtimon@jtimon.cc</a>&gt;</sp=
an> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div id=3D":4eb" class=3D"a3s"=
 style=3D"overflow:hidden">1) If &quot;not now&quot; when will it be a good=
 time to let fees rise above zero?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><di=
v>Fees are already above zero. See=C2=A0<a href=3D"http://gavinandresen.nin=
ja/the-myth-of-not-full-blocks">http://gavinandresen.ninja/the-myth-of-not-=
full-blocks</a></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty=
le=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div i=
d=3D":4eb" class=3D"a3s" style=3D"overflow:hidden">
2) When will you consider a size to be too dangerous for centralization?<br=
>
In other words, why 20 GB would have been safe but 21 GB wouldn&#39;t have<=
br>
been (or the respective maximums and respective +1 for each block<br>
increase proposal)?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><a href=3D"ht=
tp://gavinandresen.ninja/does-more-transactions-necessarily-mean-more-centr=
alized">http://gavinandresen.ninja/does-more-transactions-necessarily-mean-=
more-centralized</a><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"=
><div id=3D":4eb" class=3D"a3s" style=3D"overflow:hidden">3) Does this mean=
 that you would be in favor of completely removing<br>
the consensus rule that limits mining centralization by imposing an<br>
artificial (like any other consensus rule) block size maximum?<br></div></b=
lockquote></div><br>I don&#39;t believe that the maximum block size has muc=
h at all to do with mining centralization, so I don&#39;t accept the premis=
e of the question.<br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class=3D"gma=
il_signature">--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></div>
</div></div>

--001a11c27f40b77067051ca6aa9c--