Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1U5jTH-0002oP-Qq for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:02:27 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.42; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f42.google.com; Received: from mail-wg0-f42.google.com ([74.125.82.42]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1U5jTC-000609-N6 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:02:27 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id 12so4588084wgh.3 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:02:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.104.10 with SMTP id ga10mr12682808wib.23.1360789336646; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:02:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.176.164 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:02:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgR5=nLTBQUBzjZQs91AVw5XSTiqe-KB_T9R9wKfBrOq6Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAN1xFdrX61HsRxsXxXW+i0FzjQkoNVRaDG-2yJNOfYUi5FnsPA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAS2fgTwjXCGFS-N8a8Ro80ahxXT01dCfqWYOqmwCkdRramaMg@mail.gmail.com> <CAN1xFdrGiWmn_EaBNMXXZAV38oeqP14YiMzMZQrkA+WL9QEMfA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAS2fgR5=nLTBQUBzjZQs91AVw5XSTiqe-KB_T9R9wKfBrOq6Q@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:02:16 -0500 Message-ID: <CABsx9T2RWamFxebVJExo_4NT4WPPE=Fd4deG1AFmT=GqjD=vwQ@mail.gmail.com> From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04374a090664e904d5a1751f X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gavinandresen[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1U5jTC-000609-N6 Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Incorporating block validation rule modifications into the block chain X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:02:28 -0000 --f46d04374a090664e904d5a1751f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>wrote= : > Since, in the long run, > Bitcoin can't meet its security and decenteralization promises without > blockspace scarcity to drive non-trivial fees and without scaling > limits to keep it decenteralized=97 it's not a change that could be made > more lightly than changing the supply of coin. > I disagree with Gregory on this. I believe that Bitcoin CAN meet its security and decentralization promises without any hard limit on block size. I had a fruitful discussion about this with an economist friend this weekend, and I'll eventually getting around to writing up why I believe raising the block size limit will not be a problem. --=20 -- Gavin Andresen --f46d04374a090664e904d5a1751f Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Gregory Maxwell <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a = href=3D"mailto:gmaxwell@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gmaxwell@gmail.com</a>= ></span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail= _quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:= 1ex"> <div class=3D"im">=A0Since, in the long run,</div> Bitcoin can't meet its security and decenteralization promises without<= br> blockspace scarcity to drive non-trivial fees and without scaling<br> limits to keep it decenteralized=97 it's not a change that could be mad= e<br> more lightly than changing the supply of coin.<br></blockquote><div><br></d= iv><div>I disagree with Gregory on this. =A0I believe that Bitcoin CAN meet= its security and decentralization promises without any hard limit on block= size.=A0</div> </div><div><br></div>I had a fruitful discussion about this with an economi= st friend this weekend, and I'll eventually getting around to writing u= p why I believe raising the block size limit will not be a problem.<br clea= r=3D"all"> <div><br></div>-- <br>--<br>Gavin Andresen<br> --f46d04374a090664e904d5a1751f--