MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T3KH_pbUc+Yu4wRmWHcF1e6fEtPzLzZddwDrQBMzoZPVg@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>
	<CABsx9T3ARTAV58LYSr40VJsttO5kAtLxMDMZwkKH+ztXYw13mg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDok2WuYhGtqqvaJPez4i8Y8E4MXcCrg81ewK2j=grd45A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T3KH_pbUc+Yu4wRmWHcF1e6fEtPzLzZddwDrQBMzoZPVg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 22:01:53 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBhSBGzcBGaVfGAK0mmKRx7-HZ2cJtgvQTs6fG0Djv+NmQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f8f14a6ebb8051ca9fd6f
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size following technological growth
Precedence: list

--001a113f8f14a6ebb8051ca9fd6f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Aug 6, 2015 9:42 PM, "Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
2. The "market minimum fee" should be determined by the market. It should
not be up to us to decide "when is a good time."

I partially agree. The community should decide what risks it is willing to
take, and set limits accordingly. Let the market decide how that space is
best used.

>
>>
>> Would you agree that blocksize increase proposals should have such a
>> criterion/test?
>
>
> Although I've been very clear with my criterion, no, I don't think all
blocksize increase proposals should have to justify "why this size" or "why
this rate of increase." Part of my frustration with this whole debate is
we're talking about a sanity-check upper-limit; as long as it doesn't open
up some terrible new DoS possibility I don't think it really matters much
what the exact number is.

It is only a DoS protection limit if you want to rely on trusting miners. I
prefer a system where I don't have to do that.

But I agree the numbers don't matter much, for a different reason: the
market will fill up whatever space is available, and we'll have the same
discussion when the new limit doesn't seem enough anymore.

-- 
Pieter

--001a113f8f14a6ebb8051ca9fd6f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On Aug 6, 2015 9:42 PM, &quot;Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev&quot; &lt;<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linu=
xfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
2. The &quot;market minimum fee&quot; should be determined by the market. I=
t should not be up to us to decide &quot;when is a good time.&quot;</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I partially agree. The community should decide what risks it=
 is willing to take, and set limits accordingly. Let the market decide how =
that space is best used.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt; =C2=A0<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Would you agree that blocksize increase proposals should have such=
 a<br>
&gt;&gt; criterion/test?<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Although I&#39;ve been very clear with my criterion, no, I don&#39;t t=
hink all blocksize increase proposals should have to justify &quot;why this=
 size&quot; or &quot;why this rate of increase.&quot; Part of my frustratio=
n with this whole debate is we&#39;re talking about a sanity-check upper-li=
mit; as long as it doesn&#39;t open up some terrible new DoS possibility I =
don&#39;t think it really matters much what the exact number is.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">It is only a DoS protection limit if you want to rely on tru=
sting miners. I prefer a system where I don&#39;t have to do that.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">But I agree the numbers don&#39;t matter much, for a differe=
nt reason: the market will fill up whatever space is available, and we&#39;=
ll have the same discussion when the new limit doesn&#39;t seem enough anym=
ore.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">-- <br>
Pieter<br>
</p>

--001a113f8f14a6ebb8051ca9fd6f--