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 ) id 1Yyosc-0006u7-3k for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 30 May 2015 22:05:22 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.54; envelope-from=alex.mizrahi@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f54.google.com; Received: from mail-wg0-f54.google.com ([74.125.82.54]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Yyosb-000644-7v for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 30 May 2015 22:05:22 +0000 Received: by wgv5 with SMTP id 5so87255312wgv.1 for ; Sat, 30 May 2015 15:05:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.208.7 with SMTP id ma7mr7800491wic.0.1433023515242; Sat, 30 May 2015 15:05:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.27.102.73 with HTTP; Sat, 30 May 2015 15:05:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <554BE0E1.5030001@bluematt.me> Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 01:05:15 +0300 Message-ID: From: Alex Mizrahi To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c383ce94b5fd051753c994 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 (alex.mizrahi[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: 1Yyosb-000644-7v Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 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: Sat, 30 May 2015 22:05:22 -0000 --001a11c383ce94b5fd051753c994 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > Why 2 MB ? > Why 20 MB? Do you anticipate 20x transaction count growth in 2016? Why not grow it by 1 MB per year? This is a safer option, I don't think that anybody claims that 2 MB blocks will be a problem. And in 10 years when we get to 10 MB we'll get more evidence as to whether network can handle 10 MB blocks. So this might be a solution which would satisfy both sides: * people who are concerned about block size growth will have an opportunity to stop it before it grows too much (e.g. with a soft fork), * while people who want bigger blocks will get an equivalent of 25% per year growth within the first 10 years, which isn't bad, is it? So far I haven't heard any valid arguments against linear growth. --001a11c383ce94b5fd051753c994 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=C2=A0
=
Why 2 MB ?

Why= 20 MB? Do you anticipate 20x transaction count growth in 2016?
<= br>
Why not grow it by 1 MB per year?
This is a safer o= ption, I don't think that anybody claims that 2 MB blocks will be a pro= blem.
And in 10 years when we get to 10 MB we'll get more evi= dence as to whether network can handle 10 MB blocks.

So this might be a solution which would satisfy both sides:
= =C2=A0 * =C2=A0people who are concerned about block size growth will have a= n opportunity to stop it before it grows too much (e.g. with a soft fork),<= /div>
=C2=A0 * =C2=A0while people who want bigger blocks will get an eq= uivalent of 25% per year growth within the first 10 years, which isn't = bad, is it?

So far I haven't heard any valid a= rguments against linear growth.
--001a11c383ce94b5fd051753c994--