Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED3ABFB5 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:13:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 964E71C1 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:13:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io0-f182.google.com ([209.85.223.182]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Ludx0-1YZX2b37zM-00zpQ1 for ; Tue, 08 Sep 2015 15:13:17 +0200 Received: by iofh134 with SMTP id h134so117180388iof.0 for ; Tue, 08 Sep 2015 06:13:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.165.72 with SMTP id o69mr22281199ioe.131.1441717996964; Tue, 08 Sep 2015 06:13:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.132.195 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 06:13:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 14:13:16 +0100 Message-ID: From: Adam Back To: Ivan Brightly Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:jHeDRyKNighJ0w0Ndal/kCfk+0ChCEGm1Pe2uqom1tL0vc2/OBY pbDEy6+/iVfXM7QNV14B/P452EKZ//3qbReOPxhpzST6i57WiNDOIDgoOovBduW2ZINDahD iqJccp7KSJxCLdJD/1lhKYUCMHUNYnI9F9vBwM/zp6efNdUUHfdqS50Bv1MYzhYuV2A/WYO t0X7LwAjFO4txIYLSQVQQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:oiKfXRJ1olk=:YNaoo+RrjOjypaevq46Q7F yWIejgjZknUNrZxM+YehP1Xf5jpEj0yjaf6oaUlazmwBhi4dvTt6gXHZpcZpJbSSFQyrhRBNd gs7CBv4XMBT3zWYmcaheEoyzQaSKW8v7CtDkp9AnIbpOFU37Rc6k3mL9LT4yRTiEnHL/SJ3Da UQ9W6KquoQlktkKWXefu4+rBKgCtdfAF9FF4u0LjWM97ed50mwaL3Be3rSklIlsUIe0lMkPud Yy0pVlIqXPCMipsbETuiSTHzM18K0b2NlOfUMN7sRrVvvdjkmnHV0m7XDiYU0MnBB4g/YRzMN em07ij1PsG/1RaAJSJppG4zwCQUpEfriq1fmx0m7W6jCJ5kC9DW6O94eeBXvjALlvQdbz6r8R 87Ms2CW10RL/6Ij0vY/hNWxoF1qeepbITc1BonHarfXSeMeDr3YdZ91+Xuan7fEcH2qKp3q0/ QDfHl4iUQk1i5rzuntr7UJvHX43jg9c+SQ+OqlZncBT4d1xXz5SgH9iOb5Wr8/qUgxiJHC3Ot mrqZTLfiNBiXYsCOu/Gb1Ms1zt8jVS3AimsitnHquSjnuUS5WQWg8qRZ0ES1NEpPL3EhloLdm 4rO0S/l3+yKkQlpVMi6vPzr2QNyeF129yX4FrgSZBFtrPUCxFQ7EIzi30AwAIlWckQaOKnikw rGDZ28EiKW+L+SW08xJWydoNbgJ/xhwOAsaYaScy5wUezfox9gpmJh5m9nrAlkIqrKQPDf1y1 U3BgAWmuqRn8XnDf X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev , Washington Sanchez Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamic limit to the block size - BIP draft discussion X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2015 13:13:19 -0000 The maximum block-size is one that can be filled at zero-cost by miners, and so allows some kinds of amplification of selfish-mining related attacks. Adam On 8 September 2015 at 13:28, Ivan Brightly via bitcoin-dev wrote: > This is true, but miners already control block size through soft caps. > Miners are fully capable of producing smaller blocks regardless of the max > block limit, with or without collusion. Arguably, there is no need to ever > reduce the max block size unless technology advances for some reason reverse > course - aka, WW3 takes a toll on the internet and the average bandwidth > available halves. The likelihood of significant technology contraction in > the near future seems rather unlikely and is more broadly problematic for > society than bitcoin specifically. > > The only reason for reducing the max block limit other than technology > availability is if you think that this is what will produce the fee market, > which is back to an economic discussion - not a technology scaling > discussion. > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev > wrote: >> >> > but allow meaningful relief to transaction volume pressure in response >> > to true market demand >> >> If blocksize can only increase then it's like a market that only goes >> up which is unrealistic. Transaction will volume ebb and flow >> significantly. Some people have been looking at transaction volume >> charts over time and all they can see is an exponential curve which >> they think will go on forever, yet nothing goes up forever and it will >> go through significant trend cycles (like everything does). If you >> dont want to hurt the fee market, the blocksize has to be elastic and >> allow contraction as well as expansion. > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >