Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAA04491 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 20:20:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from pmx.vmail.no (pmx.vmail.no [193.75.16.11]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F30D7ED for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 20:20:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pmx.vmail.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (pmx.isp.as2116.net) with SMTP id 2A4BA5FA9E; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:20:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.bluecom.no (smtp.bluecom.no [193.75.75.28]) by pmx.vmail.no (pmx.isp.as2116.net) with ESMTP id ED2E05F13D; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:20:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from coldstorage.localnet (unknown [81.191.185.32]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.bluecom.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D52D31F54B; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:20:44 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Zander To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Pieter Wuille Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:20:43 +0200 Message-ID: <25710699.lX8S1tS4UG@coldstorage> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.1 (Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size following technological growth 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: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 20:20:47 -0000 On Thursday 30. July 2015 16.25.02 Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Hello all, > > here is a proposal for long-term scalability I've been working on: > https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6 > > Some things are not included yet, such as a testnet whose size runs ahead > of the main chain, and the inclusion of Gavin's more accurate sigop > checking after the hard fork. > > Comments? Maybe this part could use a bit more rationale, it looks like its a sudden and unexplained. > No hard forking change that relaxes the block size limit can be guaranteed > to provide enough space for every possible demand - or even any particular > demand - unless strong centralization of the mining ecosystem is expected. -- Thomas Zander