1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
|
Return-Path: <mickeybob@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A62D6AF3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 30 Jun 2015 16:35:14 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com
[209.85.212.174])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFCED1EF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 30 Jun 2015 16:35:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicgi11 with SMTP id gi11so22125331wic.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=Sa5b9lOGXPRjzvB3ZZURvY6gYbIgBniw3k/bLmL3S3c=;
b=eWBlCyeaWN/bcg/lKB1c7rUBCcat5hsrV6yxCHajScVu0PNn0ZmJYxYAErpMtOFP43
4W7lMZd4yXOKTTV3NhCcf7QhCFEDKAE6r2IPFpxdwfFqz6KURRAMRlUqNPigOF5uH2aj
zue5hB0wyRNlem0G0cPsN1znT+iCC1sCcI4b5rcqQfaemAHO5PyPc1VRa8K8TgqbX8zA
ro9t7lAdrD1bOh4vVEpMj9VloBxCUUvhWOonCzh3YvXfcJkDCy2Hman7ikRtlWM1cqqA
GdBynZdx4xZkMzAAFxxuRw+OqnpxLQnRaE/8/o4kN0u4VBvg6WAVyP5Ftz328zyj06gm
mpJw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.95.35 with SMTP id dh3mr34873284wib.30.1435682112575;
Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.27.10.1 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150630162526.GA8479@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <CALgxB7uvtKCNM-nH+aqqPa4KNf5O6Gx4GmgZY7Oq8=A24wCrfA@mail.gmail.com>
<5592C0A3.8050008@mail.bihthai.net>
<20150630162526.GA8479@savin.petertodd.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:35:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CALgxB7sPcRT5wgsEb2BkfvPjN98uiea6fe+JehCAW1BJUpUPEA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04447e1d549c990519becaa2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size increase oppositionists: please
clearly define what you need done to increase block size to a static 8MB,
and help do it
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 16:35:14 -0000
--f46d04447e1d549c990519becaa2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Re: Why bother doubling capacity? So that we could have 2x more network
participants of course.
Re: No clear way to scaling beyond that: Computers are getting more capable
aren't they? We'll increase capacity along with hardware.
It's a good thing to scale the network if technology permits it. How can
you argue with that?
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:15:31PM +0700, Venzen Khaosan wrote:
> > > Do what's best for Bitcoin and define what needs to get done to
> > > agree to a simple block size increase to a static 8MB.
> >
> > And this then leads back to the core issue: if an 8MB blocksize
> > excludes many on this list from testnet, then the proposed 8MB blocks
> > will exclude a lot of mainnet participants (miners) and degrade the
> > quality of diversity and decentralization.
> >
> > How about testing at double the capacity: 2MB?
>
> Which of course raises another issue: if that was the plan, then all you
> can do is double capacity, with no clear way to scaling beyond that.
> Why bother?
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 00000000000000001599522de3e8ed28f0189ddccfa1d6db5eb380cacffc79d7
>
--f46d04447e1d549c990519becaa2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Re: Why bother doubling capacity? So that we could have 2x=
more network participants of course.<div><br></div><div>Re: No clear way t=
o scaling beyond that: Computers are getting more capable aren't they? =
We'll increase capacity along with hardware.</div><div><br></div><div>I=
t's a good thing to scale the network if technology permits it. How can=
you argue with that?<br></div><div><br></div><div><div><div class=3D"gmail=
_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Pe=
ter Todd <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:pete@petertodd.org" target=
=3D"_blank">pete@petertodd.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;bo=
rder-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">=
<span class=3D"">On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:15:31PM +0700, Venzen Khaosan w=
rote:<br>
> > Do what's best for Bitcoin and define what needs to get done =
to<br>
> > agree to a simple block size increase to a static 8MB.<br>
><br>
> And this then leads back to the core issue: if an 8MB blocksize<br>
> excludes many on this list from testnet, then the proposed 8MB blocks<=
br>
> will exclude a lot of mainnet participants (miners) and degrade the<br=
>
> quality of diversity and decentralization.<br>
><br>
> How about testing at double the capacity: 2MB?<br>
<br>
</span>Which of course raises another issue: if that was the plan, then all=
you<br>
can do is double capacity, with no clear way to scaling beyond that.<br>
Why bother?<br>
<span class=3D""><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
'peter'[:-1]@<a href=3D"http://petertodd.org" rel=3D"noreferrer" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">petertodd.org</a><br>
00000000000000001599522de3e8ed28f0189ddccfa1d6db5eb380cacffc79d7<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>
--f46d04447e1d549c990519becaa2--
|
