Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Yx58c-0005Mx-9N for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 26 May 2015 03:02:42 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of outlook.com designates 65.54.190.91 as permitted sender) client-ip=65.54.190.91; envelope-from=thyshizzle@outlook.com; helo=BAY004-OMC2S16.hotmail.com; Received: from bay004-omc2s16.hotmail.com ([65.54.190.91]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1Yx58Z-0000k1-S7 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 26 May 2015 03:02:42 +0000 Received: from BAY403-EAS63 ([65.54.190.123]) by BAY004-OMC2S16.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.22751); Mon, 25 May 2015 20:02:34 -0700 X-TMN: [1cfl6MNB6C4GhXsqTb1uM57FrlVZRDJO] X-Originating-Email: [thyshizzle@outlook.com] Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_7c0a5ea1-0010-4365-9e90-352d3b2feb13_" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Phillips From: Thy Shizzle Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 13:02:00 +1000 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 May 2015 03:02:34.0296 (UTC) FILETIME=[69E42B80:01D09760] X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [65.54.190.91 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (thyshizzle[at]outlook.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_REMOTE_IMAGE Message contains an external image X-Headers-End: 1Yx58Z-0000k1-S7 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] No Bitcoin For You X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 03:02:42 -0000 --_7c0a5ea1-0010-4365-9e90-352d3b2feb13_ Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Indeed Jim=2C your internet connection makes a good reason why I don't like= 20mb blocks (right now). It would take you well over a minute to download = the block before you could even relay it on=2C so much slow down in propaga= tion! Yes I do see how decreasing the time to create blocks is a bit of a b= and-aid fix=2C and to use tge term I've seen mentioned here "kicking the ca= n down the road" I agree that this is doing this=2C however as you say band= width is our biggest enemy right now and so hopefully by the time we exceed= the capacity gained by the decrease in block time=2C we can then look to b= ump up block size because hopefully 20mbps connections will be baseline by = then etc. ________________________________ From: Jim Phillips Sent: =E2=80=8E26/=E2=80=8E05/=E2=80=8E2015 12:53 PM To: Thy Shizzle Cc: Mike Hearn=3B Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] No Bitcoin For You Frankly I'm good with either way. I'm definitely in favor of faster confirmation times. The important thing is that we need to increase the amount of transactions that get into blocks over a given time frame to a point that is in line with what current technology can handle. We can handle WAY more than we are doing right now. The Bitcoin network is not currently Disk=2C CPU=2C or RAM bound.. Not even close. The metric we're closest to being restricted by would be Network bandwidth. I live in a developing country. 2Mbps is a typical broadband speed here (although 5Mbps and 10Mbps connections are affordable). That equates to about 17MB per minute=2C or 170x more capacity than what I need to receive a full copy of the blockchain if I only talk to one peer. If I relay to say 10 peers=2C I can still handle 17x larger block sizes on a slow 2Mbps connection. Also=2C even if we reduce the difficulty so that we're doing 1MB blocks eve= ry minute=2C that's still only 10MB every 10 minutes. Eventually we're going t= o have to increase that=2C and we can only reduce the confirmation period so much. I think someone once said 30 seconds or so is about the shortest period you can practically achieve. -- *James G. Phillips IV* *"Don't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of immortals." -- David Ogilvy* *This message was created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think twice before printing.* On Mon=2C May 25=2C 2015 at 9:30 PM=2C Thy Shizzle = wrote: > Nah don't make blocks 20mb=2C then you are slowing down block propagatio= n > and blowing out conf tikes as a result. Just decrease the time it takes t= o > make a 1mb block=2C then you still see the same propagation times today a= nd > just increase the transaction throughput. > ------------------------------ > From: Jim Phillips > Sent: =E2=80=8E26/=E2=80=8E05/=E2=80=8E2015 12:27 PM > To: Mike Hearn > Cc: Bitcoin Dev > Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] No Bitcoin For You > > > On Mon=2C May 25=2C 2015 at 1:36 PM=2C Mike Hearn wrote= : > > This meme about datacenter-sized nodes has to die. The Bitcoin wiki is > down right now=2C but I showed years ago that you could keep up with VISA= on > a single well specced server with today's technology. Only people living = in > a dreamworld think that Bitcoin might actually have to match that level o= f > transaction demand with today's hardware. As noted previously=2C "too man= y > users" is simply not a problem Bitcoin has .... and may never have! > > > ... And will certainly NEVER have if we can't solve the capacity problem > SOON. > > In a former life=2C I was a capacity planner for Bank of America's > mid-range server group. We had one hard and fast rule. When you are > typically exceeding 75% of capacity on a given metric=2C it's time to exp= and > capacity. Period. You don't do silly things like adjusting the business > model to disincentivize use. Unless there's some flaw in the system and > it's leaking resources=2C if usage has increased to the point where you a= re > at or near the limits of capacity=2C you expand capacity. It's as simple = as > that=2C and I've found that same rule fits quite well in a number of syst= ems. > > In Bitcoin=2C we're not leaking resources. There's no flaw. The system i= s > performing as intended. Usage is increasing because it works so well=2C a= nd > there is huge potential for future growth as we identify more uses and > attract more users. There might be a few technical things we can do to > reduce consumption=2C but the metric we're concerned with right now is ho= w > many transactions we can fit in a block. We've broken through the 75% > marker and are regularly bumping up against the 100% limit. > > It is time to stop debating this and take action to expand capacity. The > only questions that should remain are how much capacity do we add=2C and = how > soon can we do it. Given that most existing computer systems and networks > can easily handle 20MB blocks every 10 minutes=2C and given that that wil= l > increase capacity 20-fold=2C I can't think of a single reason why we can'= t go > to 20MB as soon as humanly possible. And in a few years=2C when the avera= ge > block size is over 15MB=2C we bump it up again to as high as we can go th= en > without pushing typical computers or networks beyond their capacity. We c= an > worry about ways to slow down growth without affecting the usefulness of > Bitcoin as we get closer to the hard technical limits on our capacity. > > And you know what else? If miners need higher fees to accommodate the > costs of bigger blocks=2C they can configure their nodes to only mine > transactions with higher fees.. Let the miners decide how to charge enoug= h > to pay for their costs. We don't need to cripple the network just for the= m. > > -- > *James G. Phillips IV* > > > *"Don't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of immortals.= " > -- David Ogilvy * > > *This message was created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think > twice before printing.* > > --_7c0a5ea1-0010-4365-9e90-352d3b2feb13_ Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Inde= ed Jim=2C your internet connection makes a good reason why I don't like 20m= b blocks (right now). It would take you well over a minute to download the = block before you could even relay it on=2C so much slow down in propagation! Yes I do see how decreasing the time to cre= ate blocks is a bit of a band-aid fix=2C and to use tge term I've seen ment= ioned here "=3Bkicking the can down the road"=3B I agree that this = is doing this=2C however as you say bandwidth is our biggest enemy right now and so hopefully by the time we exceed the capacit= y gained by the decrease in block time=2C we can then look to bump up block= size because hopefully 20mbps connections will be baseline by then etc.
From: Jim Phillips
Sent: =E2=80=8E26/=E2=80=8E05/=E2=80=8E2015 12:53 PM
To: Thy Shizzle
Cc: Mike Hearn=3B Bitcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] No Bitcoin For You

Frankly I'm good with either way. I'm definitely in favor = of faster confirmation times. =3B

The important thing is that we need to increase the amount of transact= ions that get into blocks over a given time frame to a point that is in lin= e with what current technology can handle. We can handle WAY more than we a= re doing right now. The Bitcoin network is not currently Disk=2C CPU=2C or RAM bound.. Not even close. The= metric we're closest to being restricted by would be Network bandwidth. I = live in a developing country. 2Mbps is a typical broadband speed here (alth= ough 5Mbps and 10Mbps connections are affordable). That equates to about 17MB per minute=2C or 170x more capacit= y than what I need to receive a full copy of the blockchain if I only talk = to one peer. If I relay to say 10 peers=2C I can still handle 17x larger bl= ock sizes on a slow 2Mbps connection.

Also=2C even if we reduce the difficulty so that we're doing 1MB block= s every minute=2C that's still only 10MB every 10 minutes. Eventually we're= going to have to increase that=2C and we can only reduce the confirmation = period so much. I think someone once said 30 seconds or so is about the shortest period you can practically achieve.=

"=3BDon't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim = for the company of immortals."=3B -- David Ogilvy

 =3BThis message was created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think twice before printing.

On Mon=2C May 25=2C 2015 at 9:30 PM=2C Thy Shi= zzle <=3Bthyshizzl= e@outlook.com>=3B wrote:
Nah don't= make blocks 20mb=2C then you are slowing down block propagation and blowin= g out conf tikes as a result. Just decrease the time it takes to make a 1mb= block=2C then you still see the same propagation times today and just increase the transaction throughput.
From: <= a href=3D"mailto:jim@ergophobia.org" target=3D"_blank">Jim Phillips
Sent: = =E2=80=8E26/=E2=80=8E05/=E2=80=8E2015 12:27 PM
To: <= a href=3D"mailto:mike@plan99.net" target=3D"_blank">Mike Hearn Cc: <= a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_blan= k">Bitcoin Dev
Subject: R= e: [Bitcoin-development] No Bitcoin For You

... And will certainly NEVER have if we can't solve the capacity probl= em SOON. =3B

In a former life=2C I was a capacity planner for Bank of America's mid= -range server group. We had one hard and fast rule. When you are typically = exceeding 75% of capacity on a given metric=2C it's time to expand capacity= . Period. You don't do silly things like adjusting the business model to disincentivize use. Unless there's so= me flaw in the system and it's leaking resources=2C if usage has increased = to the point where you are at or near the limits of capacity=2C you expand = capacity. It's as simple as that=2C and I've found that same rule fits quite well in a number of systems. =3B<= /div>

In Bitcoin=2C we're not leaking resources. There's no flaw. The system= is performing as intended. Usage is increasing because it works so well=2C= and there is huge potential for future growth as we identify more uses and= attract more users. There might be a few technical things we can do to reduce consumption=2C but the metric w= e're concerned with right now is how many transactions we can fit in a bloc= k. We've broken through the 75% marker and are regularly bumping up against= the 100% limit.

It is time to stop debating this and take action to expand capacity. T= he only questions that should remain are how much capacity do we add=2C and= how soon can we do it. Given that most existing computer systems and netwo= rks can easily handle 20MB blocks every 10 minutes=2C and given that that will increase capacity 20-fold=2C = I can't think of a single reason why we can't go to 20MB as soon as humanly= possible. And in a few years=2C when the average block size is over 15MB= =2C we bump it up again to as high as we can go then without pushing typical computers or networks beyond their capacit= y. We can worry about ways to slow down growth without affecting the useful= ness of Bitcoin as we get closer to the hard technical limits on our capaci= ty.

And you know what else? If miners need higher fees to accommodate the = costs of bigger blocks=2C they can configure their nodes to only mine trans= actions with higher fees.. Let the miners decide how to charge enough to pa= y for their costs. We don't need to cripple the network just for them.

"=3BDon't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim = for the company of immortals."=3B -- David Ogilvy

 =3BThis message was created with 100% = recycled electrons. Please think twice before printing.


--_7c0a5ea1-0010-4365-9e90-352d3b2feb13_--