MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAG86ZOzEnjMw4xam5oUuuvyfoAps=47j418cZcw9BLs-yUCB2g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAG86ZOzEnjMw4xam5oUuuvyfoAps=47j418cZcw9BLs-yUCB2g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:52:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOG=w-sEqBpNK3ncJhKVp7h3+HckeFF0WhdDtjh=t6NH+Ok8Nw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Levin Keller <post@levinkeller.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0111bea208a3bc051d708446
Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Minimum Block Size
Precedence: list

--089e0111bea208a3bc051d708446
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Levin, it is a complicated issue for which there isn't an easy answer. Part
of the issue is that "block size" doesn't actually measure resource usage
very reliably. It is possible to support a much higher volume of typical
usage transactions than transactions specifically constructed to cause DoS
issues. But if "block size" is the knob being tweaked, then you must design
for the DoS worst case, not the average/expected use case.

Additionally, there is an issue of time horizons and what presumed
improvements are made to the client. Bitcoin Core today can barely handle
1MB blocks, but that's an engineering limitation. So are we assuming fixes
that aren't actually deployed yet? Should we raise the block size before
that work is tested and its performance characteristics validated?

It's a complicated issue without easy answers, and that's why you're not
seeing straightforward statements of "2MB", "8MB", or "20MB" from most of
the developers.

But that's not to say that people aren't doing anything. There is a
workshop being organized for September 12-13th that will cover much of
these "it's complicated" issues. There will be a follow-on workshop in the
Nov/Dec timeframe in which specific proposals will be discussed. I
encourage you to participate:

http://scalingbitcoin.org/

On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Levin Keller via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hey everyone,
>
> as with the current "max block size" debate I was wondering: Is anyone
> here in favor of a minimum block size (say 2 MB or so)? If so I would be
> interested in an exchange (maybe off-list) of ideas. I am in favor of a
> lower limit and am giving it quite a bit of thought at the moment.
>
> Cheers
>
> Levin
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

--089e0111bea208a3bc051d708446
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div>Levin, it is a complicated issue for w=
hich there isn&#39;t an easy answer. Part of the issue is that &quot;block =
size&quot; doesn&#39;t actually measure resource usage very reliably. It is=
 possible to support a much higher volume of typical usage transactions tha=
n transactions specifically constructed to cause DoS issues. But if &quot;b=
lock size&quot; is the knob being tweaked, then you must design for the DoS=
 worst case, not the average/expected use case.<br><br></div>Additionally, =
there is an issue of time horizons and what presumed improvements are made =
to the client. Bitcoin Core today can barely handle 1MB blocks, but that=
9;s an engineering limitation. So are we assuming fixes that aren&#39;t act=
ually deployed yet? Should we raise the block size before that work is test=
ed and its performance characteristics validated?<br><br></div>It&#39;s a c=
omplicated issue without easy answers, and that&#39;s why you&#39;re not se=
eing straightforward statements of &quot;2MB&quot;, &quot;8MB&quot;, or &qu=
ot;20MB&quot; from most of the developers.<br><br></div>But that&#39;s not =
to say that people aren&#39;t doing anything. There is a workshop being org=
anized for September 12-13th that will cover much of these &quot;it&#39;s c=
omplicated&quot; issues. There will be a follow-on workshop in the Nov/Dec =
timeframe in which specific proposals will be discussed. I encourage you to=
 participate:<br><br></div><a href=3D"http://scalingbitcoin.org/">http://sc=
alingbitcoin.org/</a><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D=
"gmail_quote">On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Levin Keller via bitcoin-dev=
 <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.=
org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span>=
 wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bor=
der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Hey everyone,<di=
v><br></div><div>as with the current &quot;max block size&quot; debate I wa=
s wondering: Is anyone here in favor of a minimum block size (say 2 MB or s=
o)? If so I would be interested in an exchange (maybe off-list) of ideas. I=
 am in favor of a lower limit and am giving it quite a bit of thought at th=
e moment.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font=
 color=3D"#888888"><div><br></div><div>Levin</div></font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--089e0111bea208a3bc051d708446--