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 1YzQyp-0005Ey-6e for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:46:19 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from jymx.de ([81.169.251.53] helo=mail.jymx.de) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YzQyn-0005NP-4a for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:46:19 +0000 Received: from nat6-182.its.fh-giessen.de ([212.201.18.182]:1427 helo=[192.168.192.85]) by mail.jymx.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YzQyg-0003fu-B3; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 16:46:10 +0200 Message-ID: <556C7037.1050206@olivere.de> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 16:46:15 +0200 From: Oliver Egginger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gavin Andresen References: <554BE0E1.5030001@bluematt.me> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. X-Headers-End: 1YzQyn-0005NP-4a Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements 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: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:46:19 -0000 On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > What do other people think? Would starting at a max of 8 or 4 get > consensus? Scaling up a little less than Nielsen's Law of Internet > Bandwidth predicts for the next 20 years? (I think predictability is > REALLY important). > > I chose 20 because all of my testing shows it to be safe, and all of my > back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate the costs are reasonable. > > If consensus is "8 because more than order-of-magnitude increases are > scary" -- ok. It would feel better for me if you would keep the power of two: 2^0 = 1MB 2^1 = 2MB 2^2 = 4MB 2^3 = 8MB . . . But that's only personal. Maybe other people feeling the same. - oliver