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
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
|
Return-Path: <marcel@jamin.net>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B524D102D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 11 Sep 2015 17:54:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-yk0-f169.google.com (mail-yk0-f169.google.com
[209.85.160.169])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD25E121
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 11 Sep 2015 17:54:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ykdu9 with SMTP id u9so99617885ykd.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:54:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=tCdNojmWl7Kk8gGoxwTb3I5rOSxyzheNIjAEa+DHFaw=;
b=bOgrTWk7j/0h5g+wDVwz0bcX8GAsDmLas8+Tium3Mc4cGj8rvfr7lduB3eSBqqPnSs
ivQJ2J/UVsUIa4CSQrUOe5jMfvFyk711CT/1iiTRzdA0wp1pr1iuDdr1tQ8oYbZoQDRo
Az/EYrKLXiA8JNiwCYDodVzvankXZcAvrYiS/mkzYDIHS+fU0mxLiXCYRNtTEx0COFLw
Ei/Ra2Bv/wDA4IgtitJNdzqaUw1gZVR93CHW9xuaZ35Wy4QjHaXDQEaPPaqRNtyzg7nR
A/fHqxlbuZ02mBqyMtYauL6CGD7sUZQRHgTrSUbhNdeBgYZHpRTNixD7U/vJk0gzaPTA
gy0g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmG/Bp9F1g5ZtrZqEmaNxGN6ZoTyERIqz2tpWjYKgq3KnuKOLQ1D0wEZtDt9TTBX5d3Z970
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.170.69.66 with SMTP id l63mr126ykl.89.1441994057301; Fri, 11
Sep 2015 10:54:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.13.220.65 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:54:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTF5BxdeWm1PBBNwWm41o8Y3bMvgSyDm2_CE73ibXnnwiw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAUq485B5AoTpRBzf0=KFm-k58Zoz+ns-Y7BXc3JwG87VsDo+g@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDrsnVEkcq2CPwK4fcJpwHj6ouTSRnk4U2bMBOPvjRuD_w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAUq486GxLw25TW2SV6d8vCCdhY5SEjfdAPCOhV6ta+hoyJY5Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CALqxMTF5BxdeWm1PBBNwWm41o8Y3bMvgSyDm2_CE73ibXnnwiw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 19:54:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAUq484fRauFkiaTRc5GE7ZNVEqX_b7-JaSx5_tJeOp=Cjb=jQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Marcel Jamin <marcel@jamin.net>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113998ba8e76fb051f7c67b4
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,URIBL_BLACK autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Yet another blocklimit proposal / compromise
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: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 17:54:19 -0000
--001a113998ba8e76fb051f7c67b4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Therefore it is important that it be reasonably convenient to run full
nodes for decentralisation security.
Yes, and I'm suggesting to define what "reasonably convenient" is in 2016.
Most likely node operators have more than a little headroom for larger
blocks. If you just use more of the processing power / storage / bandwidth
you very likely already paid for then there is no increase in costs.
> I think you maybe misunderstanding what the Chinese miners said also, abo=
ut
8MB, that was a cap on the maximum they felt they could handle with current
network infrastructure.
And what they felt "remained fair to all to all miners and node operators
worldwide." Increasing network connection requirements might even decrease
mining centralization right now.
2015-09-11 18:47 GMT+02:00 Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>:
> Bitcoin security depends on the enforcement of consensus rules which
> is done by economically dependent full nodes. This is distinct from
> miners fullnodes, and balances miners interests, otherwise SPV nodes
> and decentralisation of policy would tend degrade, I think. Therefore
> it is important that it be reasonably convenient to run full nodes for
> decentralisation security.
>
> Also you may want to read this summary of Bitcoin decentralisation by Mar=
k:
>
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h7eei/greg_luke_adam_if_xt_tak=
es_over_and_wins_the/cu53eq3
>
> I think you maybe misunderstanding what the Chinese miners said also,
> about 8MB, that was a cap on the maximum they felt they could handle
> with current network infrastructure.
>
> I had proposed 2-4-8MB growing over a 4 year time frame with 2MB once
> the hard-fork is upgraded by everyone in the network. (I dont
> consider miner triggers, as with soft-fork upgrades, to be an
> appropriate roll out mechanism because it is more important that
> economically dependent full nodes upgrade, though it can be useful to
> know that miners also have upgraded to a reasonable extent to avoid a
> temporary hashrate drop off affecting security).
>
> Adam
>
> On 9 September 2015 at 15:00, Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > I think the overlap of people who want to run a serious mining operatio=
n
> and
> > people who are unable to afford a slightly above average internet
> connection
> > is infinitesimally small.
> >
> > 2015-09-09 20:51 GMT+02:00 Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc>:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sep 9, 2015 8:36 PM, "Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev"
> >> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I propose to:
> >> >
> >> > a) assess what blocklimit is currently technically possible without
> >> > driving up costs of running a node up too much. Most systems current=
ly
> >> > running a fullnode probably have some capacity left.
> >>
> >> What about the risk of further increasing mining centralization?
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
>
--001a113998ba8e76fb051f7c67b4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">>=C2=A0<span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Therefore=C2=A0=
</span><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">it is important that it be reasonab=
ly convenient to run full nodes for=C2=A0</span><span style=3D"font-size:12=
.8px">decentralisation security.</span><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px=
"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Yes, and I'm s=
uggesting to define what "reasonably convenient" is in 2016. Most=
likely node operators have more than a little headroom for larger blocks. =
If you just use more of the processing power / storage / bandwidth you very=
likely already paid for then there is no increase in costs.</span></div><d=
iv><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"fo=
nt-size:12.8px">>=C2=A0</span><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">I think y=
ou maybe misunderstanding what the Chinese miners said also,=C2=A0</span><s=
pan style=3D"font-size:12.8px">about 8MB, that was a cap on the maximum the=
y felt they could handle=C2=A0</span><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">with =
current network infrastructure.</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:1=
2.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">And what they=
felt "remained fair to all=C2=A0to all miners and node operators worl=
dwide." Increasing network connection requirements might even decrease=
mining centralization right now.</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size=
:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span>=
</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2015-=
09-11 18:47 GMT+02:00 Adam Back <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:ada=
m@cypherspace.org" target=3D"_blank">adam@cypherspace.org</a>></span>:<b=
r><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:=
1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Bitcoin security depends on the enforcemen=
t of consensus rules which<br>
is done by economically dependent full nodes.=C2=A0 This is distinct from<b=
r>
miners fullnodes, and balances miners interests, otherwise SPV nodes<br>
and decentralisation of policy would tend degrade, I think.=C2=A0 Therefore=
<br>
it is important that it be reasonably convenient to run full nodes for<br>
decentralisation security.<br>
<br>
Also you may want to read this summary of Bitcoin decentralisation by Mark:=
<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h7eei/greg_luke_adam_=
if_xt_takes_over_and_wins_the/cu53eq3" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank"=
>https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h7eei/greg_luke_adam_if_xt_take=
s_over_and_wins_the/cu53eq3</a><br>
<br>
I think you maybe misunderstanding what the Chinese miners said also,<br>
about 8MB, that was a cap on the maximum they felt they could handle<br>
with current network infrastructure.<br>
<br>
I had proposed 2-4-8MB growing over a 4 year time frame with 2MB once<br>
the hard-fork is upgraded by everyone in the network.=C2=A0 (I dont<br>
consider miner triggers, as with soft-fork upgrades, to be an<br>
appropriate roll out mechanism because it is more important that<br>
economically dependent full nodes upgrade, though it can be useful to<br>
know that miners also have upgraded to a reasonable extent to avoid a<br>
temporary hashrate drop off affecting security).<br>
<br>
Adam<br>
<br>
On 9 September 2015 at 15:00, Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev<br>
<<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> I think the overlap of people who want to run a serious mining operati=
on and<br>
> people who are unable to afford a slightly above average internet conn=
ection<br>
> is infinitesimally small.<br>
><br>
> 2015-09-09 20:51 GMT+02:00 Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc>:<=
br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Sep 9, 2015 8:36 PM, "Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev"<b=
r>
>> <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitco=
in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> ><br>
>> > I propose to:<br>
>> ><br>
>> > a) assess what blocklimit is currently technically possible w=
ithout<br>
>> > driving up costs of running a node up too much. Most systems =
currently<br>
>> > running a fullnode probably have some capacity left.<br>
>><br>
>> What about the risk of further increasing mining centralization?<b=
r>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@l=
ists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
> <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-=
dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a113998ba8e76fb051f7c67b4--
|
