MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 18:18:48 -0300
Message-ID: <CAKzdR-o7_A2N=-=3muXcs7ptnoO2d3wSBAMAziNGs7XjnceGBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11360288e19824051cbf303f
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] If you had a single chance to double the
	transactions/second Bitcoin allows...
Precedence: list

--001a11360288e19824051cbf303f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

What would you do?

a. Double the block size
b. Reduce the block rate to a half (average 5 minute blocks)

Suppose this is a one time hard fork. There no drastic technical problems
with any of them: "SPV" mining and the relay network has shown that block
propagation is not an issue for such as small change. Mining centralization
won't radically change for a 2x adjustment.

So what would be best for Bitcoin?

I suspect some (if not most of you) would choose b. Because reducing the
block interval saves us real time. Waiting 30 minutes for a 3-block
confirmation is... such a long time! Time that we value. Time that
sometimes we waste waiting. Time that makes a difference for us. Doubling
the block size does not change the user perception of Bitcoin in any way.

Then why most discussions go around doubling the block size?

Each change require less than 20 lines of code (*) in the reference code,
and minimum change in other wallets.

Currently there is no idle mining hardware for hire, so the security of six
10-minute block confirmation is equivalent to the security of six 5-minute
block confirmations, as described in Satoshi's paper (if there were 51%
spare mining hardware for hire, then obviously hiring that hardware for 30
minutes would cost less than hiring it for 1 hour).

Why we discuss a 2x block size increase and not a 1/2 block interval
reduction? Aren't we Bitcoin users after all?

Best regards,
 Sergio.

(*) b requires increasing the transaction version number, to support the
old nLockTime rate.

--001a11360288e19824051cbf303f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">What would you do?<div><br></div><div>a. Double the block =
size</div><div>b. Reduce the block rate to a half (average 5 minute blocks)=
</div><div><br></div><div><div>Suppose this is a one time hard fork. There =
no drastic technical problems with any of them: &quot;SPV&quot; mining and =
the relay network has shown that block propagation is not an issue for such=
 as small change. Mining centralization won&#39;t radically change for a 2x=
 adjustment.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>So what would be best for Bitco=
in?</div></div><div><br></div><div>I suspect some (if not most of you) woul=
d choose b. Because reducing the block interval saves us real time. Waiting=
 30 minutes for a 3-block confirmation is... such a long time! Time that we=
 value. Time that sometimes we waste waiting. Time that makes a difference =
for us. Doubling the block size does not change the user perception of Bitc=
oin in any way.</div><div><br></div><div>Then why most discussions go aroun=
d doubling the block size?<br></div><div><br></div><div><div>Each change re=
quire less than 20 lines of code (*) in the reference code, and minimum cha=
nge in other wallets.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>Currently there is no =
idle mining hardware for hire, so the security of six 10-minute block confi=
rmation is equivalent to the security of six 5-minute block confirmations, =
as described in Satoshi&#39;s paper (if there were 51% spare mining hardwar=
e for hire, then obviously hiring that hardware for 30 minutes would cost l=
ess than hiring it for 1 hour).</div></div><div><br></div><div>Why we discu=
ss a 2x block size increase and not a 1/2 block interval reduction? Aren=
9;t we Bitcoin users after all?</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div=
><div>=C2=A0Sergio.</div><div><br></div><div>(*) b requires increasing the =
transaction version number, to support the old nLockTime rate.<br></div><di=
v><br></div><div><br></div></div>

--001a11360288e19824051cbf303f--