MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBj-wA1DMrwkQRWnzQoB5NR-q=2-5=WDAAUYfSpXRZSTqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBj-wA1DMrwkQRWnzQoB5NR-q=2-5=WDAAUYfSpXRZSTqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:20:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T1NqBX9Tr8vRCtCeri76e0wrtkvRhEPyG9Advv_3Uqxng@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c264bef87130051c1a14f7
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size following technological growth
Precedence: list

--001a11c264bef87130051c1a14f7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Some things are not included yet, such as a testnet whose size runs ahead
> of the main chain, and the inclusion of Gavin's more accurate sigop
> checking after the hard fork.
>
> Comments?
>

First, THANK YOU for making a concrete proposal!

Specific comments:

So we'd get to 2MB blocks in the year 2021. I think that is much too
conservative, and the most likely effect of being that conservative is that
the main blockchain becomes a settlement network, affordable only for
large-value transactions.

I don't think your proposal strikes the right balance between
centralization of payments (a future where only people running payment
hubs, big merchants, exchanges, and wallet providers settle on the
blockchain) and centralization of mining.


I'll comment on using median time generally in Jorge's thread, but why does
monotonically increasing matter for max block size? I can't think of a
reason why a max block size of X bytes in block N followed by a max size of
X-something bytes in block N+1 would cause any problems.

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen

--001a11c264bef87130051c1a14f7
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, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"lt=
r">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_=
blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc so=
lid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>Some things are not includ=
ed yet, such as a testnet whose size runs ahead of the main chain, and the =
inclusion of Gavin&#39;s more accurate sigop checking after the hard fork.<=
br><br></div>Comments?<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br></=
font></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>First, THANK YOU f=
or making a concrete proposal!</div><div><br></div><div>Specific comments:<=
/div><div><br></div><div>So we&#39;d get to 2MB blocks in the year 2021. I =
think that is much too conservative, and the most likely effect of being th=
at conservative is that the main blockchain becomes a settlement network, a=
ffordable only for large-value transactions.</div><div><br></div><div>I don=
&#39;t think your proposal strikes the right balance between centralization=
 of payments (a future where only people running payment hubs, big merchant=
s, exchanges, and wallet providers settle on the blockchain) and centraliza=
tion of mining.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I=
9;ll comment on using median time generally in Jorge&#39;s thread, but why =
does monotonically increasing matter for max block size? I can&#39;t think =
of a reason why a max block size of X bytes in block N followed by a max si=
ze of X-something bytes in block N+1 would cause any problems.</div></div><=
div><br></div>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_signature">--<br>Gavin Andresen<br=
></div>
</div></div>

--001a11c264bef87130051c1a14f7--