Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_028075CF-01EA-495A-9C79-DA8D992842AF";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-sanb-vOt6YaDJhdT2CCmnqWYTBF204sBZ1=Dsveko7og@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:55:20 -0700
Message-Id: <35B780B8-7282-4C98-9A0D-C7774028E277@gmail.com>
References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com>
	<D2CDA490-F04A-41EA-85F7-56BA5B052729@me.com>
	<CAOG=w-sanb-vOt6YaDJhdT2CCmnqWYTBF204sBZ1=Dsveko7og@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn't
	temporary
Precedence: list


--Apple-Mail=_028075CF-01EA-495A-9C79-DA8D992842AF
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_6EADD47E-3D94-4AC3-AB98-C6E67D657F30"


--Apple-Mail=_6EADD47E-3D94-4AC3-AB98-C6E67D657F30
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

I agree that the historical reasons are irrelevant from an engineering =
perspective. But they still set a context for the discussion=E2=80=A6and =
might help shed some insight into the motivations behind some of the =
participants. It=E2=80=99s also good to know these things to counter =
arguments that start with =E2=80=9CBut Satoshi said that=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D=


What=E2=80=99s critically important to note is that several of the =
assumptions that were being made at the time this limit was decided have =
turned out wrong=E2=80=A6and that these other issues should probably be =
of greater concern and more highly prioritized in any discussion =
considering the merits of deploying potentially incompatible consensus =
rule changes. It seems if these other issues were fixed perhaps no block =
size limit would be required at all (as was originally hoped).

- Eric

> On Jul 28, 2015, at 5:46 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org> =
wrote:
>=20
> Does it matter even in the slightest why the block size limit was put =
in place? It does not. Bitcoin is a decentralized payment network, and =
the relationship between utility (block size) and decentralization is =
empirical. Why the 1MB limit was put in place at the time might be a =
historically interesting question, but it bears little relevance to the =
present engineering issues.
>=20
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>=20
> > Enter a =E2=80=9Ctemporary=E2=80=9D anti-spam measure - a one =
megabyte block size limit. Let=E2=80=99s test this out, then increase it =
once we see how things work. So far so good=E2=80=A6
> >
>=20
> The block size limit was put in place as an anti-DoS measure (monster =
blocks), not "anti-spam". It was never intended to have any economic =
effect, not on spam and not on any future fee market.
>=20
>=20
> jp
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev =
<https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
>=20


--Apple-Mail=_6EADD47E-3D94-4AC3-AB98-C6E67D657F30
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=utf-8

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" =
class=3D"">I agree that the historical reasons are irrelevant from an =
engineering perspective. But they still set a context for the =
discussion=E2=80=A6and might help shed some insight into the motivations =
behind some of the participants. It=E2=80=99s also good to know these =
things to counter arguments that start with =E2=80=9CBut Satoshi said =
that=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D<div class=3D""><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">What=E2=80=99s critically important to =
note is that several of the assumptions that were being made at the time =
this limit was decided have turned out wrong=E2=80=A6and that these =
other issues should probably be of greater concern and more highly =
prioritized in any discussion considering the merits of deploying =
potentially incompatible consensus rule changes. It seems if these other =
issues were fixed perhaps no block size limit would be required at all =
(as was originally hoped).<br class=3D""><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">- Eric</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""><div><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D"">On =
Jul 28, 2015, at 5:46 PM, Mark Friedenbach &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:mark@friedenbach.org" =
class=3D"">mark@friedenbach.org</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D"">Does it matter even in the slightest why the block size limit =
was put in place? It does not. Bitcoin is a decentralized payment =
network, and the relationship between utility (block size) and =
decentralization is empirical. Why the 1MB limit was put in place at the =
time might be a historically interesting question, but it bears little =
relevance to the present engineering issues.<br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra"><br class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, =
Jul 28, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman via bitcoin-dev <span =
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"">&lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> =
wrote:<br class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 =
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D""><br=
 class=3D"">
&gt; Enter a =E2=80=9Ctemporary=E2=80=9D anti-spam measure - a one =
megabyte block size limit. Let=E2=80=99s test this out, then increase it =
once we see how things work. So far so good=E2=80=A6<br class=3D"">
&gt;<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
</span>The block size limit was put in place as an anti-DoS measure =
(monster blocks), not "anti-spam". It was never intended to have any =
economic effect, not on spam and not on any future fee market.<br =
class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
jp<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
_______________________________________________<br class=3D"">
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br class=3D"">
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br class=3D"">
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"=
 rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<=
/a><br class=3D"">
</blockquote></div><br class=3D""></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></div></div></div></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail=_6EADD47E-3D94-4AC3-AB98-C6E67D657F30--

--Apple-Mail=_028075CF-01EA-495A-9C79-DA8D992842AF
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=nNTS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_028075CF-01EA-495A-9C79-DA8D992842AF--