Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <1240902@gmail.com>) id 1YzR1J-0005RQ-Qt for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:48:53 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.42; envelope-from=1240902@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f42.google.com; Received: from mail-wg0-f42.google.com ([74.125.82.42]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YzR1H-0005Qh-Am for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:48:53 +0000 Received: by wgbgq6 with SMTP id gq6so116712418wgb.3 for ; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 07:48:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.36.170 with SMTP id r10mr6348769wij.10.1433170125346; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 07:48:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.208.69 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 07:48:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <556C7037.1050206@olivere.de> References: <554BE0E1.5030001@bluematt.me> <556C7037.1050206@olivere.de> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 22:48:45 +0800 Message-ID: From: Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com> To: Oliver Egginger Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) 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 (1240902[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (1240902[at]gmail.com) -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: 1YzR1H-0005Qh-Am Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:48:53 -0000 The current max block size of 1000000 bytes is not power of two anyway. On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Oliver Egginger wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: >> What do other people think? Would starting at a max of 8 or 4 get >> consensus? Scaling up a little less than Nielsen's Law of Internet >> Bandwidth predicts for the next 20 years? (I think predictability is >> REALLY important). >> >> I chose 20 because all of my testing shows it to be safe, and all of my >> back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate the costs are reasonable. >> >> If consensus is "8 because more than order-of-magnitude increases are >> scary" -- ok. > > It would feel better for me if you would keep the power of two: > > 2^0 = 1MB > 2^1 = 2MB > 2^2 = 4MB > 2^3 = 8MB > . > . > . > > But that's only personal. Maybe other people feeling the same. > > - oliver > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development