Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E8DD8D9 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:34:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.bihthai.net (unknown [5.255.87.165]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22AE61A1 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:34:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.8.0.6] (unknown [10.8.0.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: venzen) by mail.bihthai.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95F4520DFD for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:35:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <55C0BF4B.3090100@mail.bihthai.net> Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 20:34:03 +0700 From: Venzen Khaosan Reply-To: venzen@mail.bihthai.net Organization: Bihthai Bai Mai User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bitcoin Dev References: In-Reply-To: OpenPGP: id=1CF07D66; url=pool.sks-keyservers.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size following technological growth 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, 04 Aug 2015 13:34:11 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/04/2015 07:19 PM, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On 4 August 2015 at 12:59, Jorge Timón > wrote: > So if you say 8, I must ask, why not 9? Why 9 MB is not safe for > mining centralization but 8 MB is? > > > 8MB has simply been the focal point for this debate. 9MB is also > safe if 8MB is, but I suppose the opponents will be even less > happy with 9 than with 8, and we don't want to unnecessarily > increase the conflict. > Jorge will answer for himself, but you know that saying "9MB is also safe if 8MB is" blows your position. Do you, or me, or XT know that 8MB is "safe"? You say 9MB must then also be "safe" - there has been no fact for me to grasp and from which to tell a Bitcoin trading whale group: "here's the bottom line: this is what it means and these are the implications." They hold significant amounts of bitcoin and want to see a plan, and a strategy based on facts. I can assure you, they're not going to XT, it lacks both a strategy and the seasoned developers present here. > It seems like the rationale it's always "the bigger the better" and > the only limitation is what a few people concerned with mining > centralization (while they still have time to discuss this) are > willing to accept. If that's the case, then there won't be > effectively any limit in the long term and Bitcoin will probably > fail in its decentralization goals. > > > A one-time increase to 8MB is safer than a dynamically growing > limit over time for exactly this reason. Admittedly whenever the > next debate to increase the block size over 8MB happens it will be > even more painful and non-obvious, but that is the safety check to > prevent unbounded block size increase. You're articulate and you raise valid issues, but your judgment of "safer" is not based on anything you or this list can refer to as a comparator. It seems you want 8MB for some ideological reason but if you examine your motive and compare it to the facts, you'll find that many people in this list are ultimately correct in saying that: Whatever blocksize is set to, demand will soon fill it. This is the nature of resource supply inflation - some business plan will spot the opportunity and exploit it, colonize it and then we deal with that, with some big-girls'-blouses exclaiming: "if we don't give them what they want they're all going to leave to XT or ZT!" Even though XT and ZT perfectly fulfill the needs of certain ambitious businesses, the creators would rather see it happen on Core's blockchain. Else why do they still come posit arguments here? Fortunately, unlike the principle that applies in finance capital, Bitcoin capacity supply doesn't have be increased on demand (not without rigorous testing and evaluation) plus there is no maxim here that "the customer is always right". The maxim is "be your own bank" - during some periods it might be a slow bank but it _will_ remain decentralized and it _will_ remain your own - not compromised to some big business or mining cartel. We want to compromise to science and reason, not profit motive or democratic lobbying, right? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVwL80AAoJEGwAhlQc8H1mTVsH/3mdA4XrrRaBx7m/SckufNUu OWJF/TPuEb0e3/A+OKNvYJgGtkZ9+8pQe2hQK2F1NxFG8QbbIPFXb4PYIiEnU8by LMMNuDFfZXq0MEyTXXHgNj+XBSR74QKceXD4KM3jVeuieXE2KXGOyeiUD7Tjx0Gv fyNAM4rhxmipGFu9kmnI6Bm25I4FBzif+ARQSWNmdZQn2bPkFrK0/Q4s/CyXngbb S/DiPJ7XZrBJ2ogQycVmA4QesOyz30FpQ+QMt5nFUWma3LpLoYEBPtJd8rsG773i acqSrOXxgfcGtNfbBU0xeTO/FOO4tXtbDVHBTKCBLZ5MgmBOYcm6OTLAwpeHlYY= =WhnR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----