Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <4FE7458E.2020908@justmoon.de>
References: <CANEZrP0nagdAXyMEY5yxyXBjdo78YC16mjUG9=b0AMe4qOS=fA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4FE7458E.2020908@justmoon.de>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:44:50 +0200
Message-ID: <CANEZrP1DyCn0cFdPjohgFoyux17_RmNh6Fk=8kpO1R1Cr0YFGg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Stefan Thomas <moon@justmoon.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Enforcing inflation rules for SPV clients
Precedence: list

> Very interesting for you to bring this up. I had a similar idea for a
> totally different use case. Greg recently pointed out an interesting
> dilemma saying that (significantly) larger blocks would lead to
> centralization.

Yeah. I am still unsure that this really holds. Bitcoin moves fast,
but even so, unless there are a few more SatoshiDice-like events and
the way people use transactions changes dramatically we're a long way
from gigabyte sized blocks.  And once we get there, technology will
probably have improved to the point where it doesn't seem like a big
deal anymore.

Of course we have debated this many times already. Maybe again at the
next meetup :-)