Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4DD9898 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 18:18:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from s47.web-hosting.com (s47.web-hosting.com [199.188.200.16]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6185918F for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 18:18:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:57758 helo=server47.web-hosting.com) by server47.web-hosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1ZNmD3-004MS9-FN; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 14:17:37 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 14:17:32 -0400 From: jl2012@xbt.hk To: Pieter Wuille In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6786132febd22f90c4107285920d76ca@xbt.hk> X-Sender: jl2012@xbt.hk User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.5 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server47.web-hosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.linuxfoundation.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - xbt.hk X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server47.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: jl2012@xbt.hk X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process 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: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 18:18:53 -0000 Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-08-07 12:28 寫到: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Gavin Andresen > wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieter Wuille >> wrote: >> >>> I guess my question (and perhaps that's what Jorge is after): do >>> you feel that blocks should be increased in response to (or for >>> fear of) such a scenario. >> >> I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, >> and yes, fear of Bad Things Happening as we run up against the 1MB >> limit is one of the reasons. >> >> I take the opinion of smart engineers who actually do resource >> planning and have seen what happens when networks run out of >> capacity very seriously. > > This is a fundamental disagreement then. I believe that the demand is > infinite if you don't set a fee minimum (and I don't think we should), > and it just takes time for the market to find a way to fill whatever > is available - the rest goes into off-chain systems anyway. You will > run out of capacity at any size, and acting out of fear of that > reality does not improve the system. Whatever size blocks are actually > produced, I believe the result will either be something people > consider too small to be competitive ("you mean Bitcoin can only do 24 > transactions per second?" sounds almost the same as "you mean Bitcoin > can only do 3 transactions per second?"), or something that is very > centralized in practice, and likely both. What if we reduce the block size to 0.125MB? That will allow 0.375tx/s. If 3->24 sounds "almost the same", 3->0.375 also sounds almost the same. We will have 50000 full nodes, instead of 5000, since it is so affordable to run a full node. If 0.125MB sounds too extreme, what about 0.5/0.7/0.9MB? Are we going to have more full nodes? No, I'm not trolling. I really want someone to tell me why we should/shouldn't reduce the block size. Are we going to have more or less full nodes if we reduce the block size?