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
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jim@ergophobia.org>) id 1Yx501-00051y-RI
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 26 May 2015 02:53:49 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Yx4zz-0002x6-DB
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 26 May 2015 02:53:49 +0000
Received: by wifw1 with SMTP id w1so13916409wif.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 25 May 2015 19:53:41 -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:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
bh=M2+EPWXpXd6jfPxS8ikB2+gEkOJ9St5hz6qSemIczZQ=;
b=IsYR0RzoADT8lNUiwvRzQSPILsHQsAlUGCYxNkcAmQqHU31qlvx+1iWlMwhx3kbLAb
9Vw33J9aZ8U3stdaMcMA3qKMIva2DYncCxrI1trYEfiDMY5rjhc/Foxcj1H9VFnwGF1y
1P+iScuINnR5vZmvyi/HbtVFJJarp2TAF1xGENKhhYLI43XYIhjvM5gQb4/hp4/DWg4h
vsDkncFUYGr3wiVX+AdjNwRWuZS1Ad27Zc8xX1DZBh75MVMFy1M4rLHwRJ9aIUnz0Oe9
SC+e4sk37uuRRkcZc1PdCKNcJKJpVxzt87McKWauqLpZKWacwe9osa4gml0BF6xX/pvO
Bg4A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkwlnEY261JE07H+BnaL4L8Q2vpSm6VMU2nHPE+jfwkzXDoA1xXmG4zbfjlFFo3mRtJ/4gE
X-Received: by 10.180.107.138 with SMTP id hc10mr36235951wib.2.1432608821330;
Mon, 25 May 2015 19:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.246.69 with HTTP; Mon, 25 May 2015 19:53:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BAY403-EAS278EF7A9628FBB64F90CF09C2CC0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY403-EAS278EF7A9628FBB64F90CF09C2CC0@phx.gbl>
From: Jim Phillips <jim@ergophobia.org>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 21:53:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CANe1mWxUTR1Syu242eaS7h6AK6rsuw5bmNKmcoLtoSO=KGG6Dg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thy Shizzle <thyshizzle@outlook.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f235739e5daff0516f33b0b
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.0 T_REMOTE_IMAGE Message contains an external image
X-Headers-End: 1Yx4zz-0002x6-DB
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] No Bitcoin For You
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 02:53:49 -0000
--e89a8f235739e5daff0516f33b0b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Frankly I'm good with either way. I'm definitely in favor of faster
confirmation times.
The important thing is that we need to increase the amount of transactions
that get into blocks over a given time frame to a point that is in line
with what current technology can handle. We can handle WAY more than we are
doing right now. The Bitcoin network is not currently Disk, CPU, or RAM
bound.. Not even close. The metric we're closest to being restricted by
would be Network bandwidth. I live in a developing country. 2Mbps is a
typical broadband speed here (although 5Mbps and 10Mbps connections are
affordable). That equates to about 17MB per minute, or 170x more capacity
than what I need to receive a full copy of the blockchain if I only talk to
one peer. If I relay to say 10 peers, I can still handle 17x larger block
sizes on a slow 2Mbps connection.
Also, even if we reduce the difficulty so that we're doing 1MB blocks every
minute, that's still only 10MB every 10 minutes. Eventually we're going to
have to increase that, and we can only reduce the confirmation period so
much. I think someone once said 30 seconds or so is about the shortest
period you can practically achieve.
--
*James G. Phillips IV*
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/113107039501292625391/posts>
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ergophobe>
*"Don't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of immortals."
-- David Ogilvy*
*This message was created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think twice
before printing.*
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Thy Shizzle <thyshizzle@outlook.com> wrote=
:
> Nah don't make blocks 20mb, then you are slowing down block propagation
> and blowing out conf tikes as a result. Just decrease the time it takes t=
o
> make a 1mb block, then you still see the same propagation times today and
> just increase the transaction throughput.
> ------------------------------
> From: Jim Phillips <jim@ergophobia.org>
> Sent: =E2=80=8E26/=E2=80=8E05/=E2=80=8E2015 12:27 PM
> To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
> Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] No Bitcoin For You
>
>
> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>
> This meme about datacenter-sized nodes has to die. The Bitcoin wiki is
> down right now, but I showed years ago that you could keep up with VISA o=
n
> a single well specced server with today's technology. Only people living =
in
> a dreamworld think that Bitcoin might actually have to match that level o=
f
> transaction demand with today's hardware. As noted previously, "too many
> users" is simply not a problem Bitcoin has .... and may never have!
>
>
> ... And will certainly NEVER have if we can't solve the capacity problem
> SOON.
>
> In a former life, I was a capacity planner for Bank of America's
> mid-range server group. We had one hard and fast rule. When you are
> typically exceeding 75% of capacity on a given metric, it's time to expan=
d
> capacity. Period. You don't do silly things like adjusting the business
> model to disincentivize use. Unless there's some flaw in the system and
> it's leaking resources, if usage has increased to the point where you are
> at or near the limits of capacity, you expand capacity. It's as simple as
> that, and I've found that same rule fits quite well in a number of system=
s.
>
> In Bitcoin, we're not leaking resources. There's no flaw. The system is
> performing as intended. Usage is increasing because it works so well, and
> there is huge potential for future growth as we identify more uses and
> attract more users. There might be a few technical things we can do to
> reduce consumption, but the metric we're concerned with right now is how
> many transactions we can fit in a block. We've broken through the 75%
> marker and are regularly bumping up against the 100% limit.
>
> It is time to stop debating this and take action to expand capacity. The
> only questions that should remain are how much capacity do we add, and ho=
w
> soon can we do it. Given that most existing computer systems and networks
> can easily handle 20MB blocks every 10 minutes, and given that that will
> increase capacity 20-fold, I can't think of a single reason why we can't =
go
> to 20MB as soon as humanly possible. And in a few years, when the average
> block size is over 15MB, we bump it up again to as high as we can go then
> without pushing typical computers or networks beyond their capacity. We c=
an
> worry about ways to slow down growth without affecting the usefulness of
> Bitcoin as we get closer to the hard technical limits on our capacity.
>
> And you know what else? If miners need higher fees to accommodate the
> costs of bigger blocks, they can configure their nodes to only mine
> transactions with higher fees.. Let the miners decide how to charge enoug=
h
> to pay for their costs. We don't need to cripple the network just for the=
m.
>
> --
> *James G. Phillips IV*
> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/113107039501292625391/posts>
>
> *"Don't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of immortals.=
"
> -- David Ogilvy *
>
> *This message was created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think
> twice before printing.*
>
>
--e89a8f235739e5daff0516f33b0b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Frankly I'm good with either way. I'm definitely i=
n favor of faster confirmation times.=C2=A0<div><br></div><div>The importan=
t thing is that we need to increase the amount of transactions that get int=
o blocks over a given time frame to a point that is in line with what curre=
nt technology can handle. We can handle WAY more than we are doing right no=
w. The Bitcoin network is not currently Disk, CPU, or RAM bound.. Not even =
close. The metric we're closest to being restricted by would be Network=
bandwidth. I live in a developing country. 2Mbps is a typical broadband sp=
eed here (although 5Mbps and 10Mbps connections are affordable). That equat=
es to about 17MB per minute, or 170x more capacity than what I need to rece=
ive a full copy of the blockchain if I only talk to one peer. If I relay to=
say 10 peers, I can still handle 17x larger block sizes on a slow 2Mbps co=
nnection.<div><br></div><div>Also, even if we reduce the difficulty so that=
we're doing 1MB blocks every minute, that's still only 10MB every =
10 minutes. Eventually we're going to have to increase that, and we can=
only reduce the confirmation period so much. I think someone once said 30 =
seconds or so is about the shortest period you can practically achieve.</di=
v></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br clear=3D"all"><div><div class=
=3D"gmail_signature"><div>--<div><b>James G. Phillips IV</b>=C2=A0<a href=
=3D"https://plus.google.com/u/0/113107039501292625391/posts" style=3D"font-=
size:x-small" target=3D"_blank"><img src=3D"https://ssl.gstatic.com/images/=
icons/gplus-16.png"></a>=C2=A0<a href=3D"http://www.linkedin.com/in/ergopho=
be" target=3D"_blank"><img src=3D"http://developer.linkedin.com/sites/defau=
lt/files/LinkedIn_Logo16px.png"></a></div></div><div><font size=3D"1"><i>&q=
uot;Don't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of immort=
als." -- David Ogilvy<br></i></font><div><font size=3D"1"><br></font><=
/div></div><div><font size=3D"1"><img src=3D"http://findicons.com/files/ico=
ns/1156/fugue/16/leaf.png">=C2=A0<em style=3D"background-color:rgb(255,255,=
255);font-family:verdana,geneva,sans-serif;line-height:16px;color:green">Th=
is message was created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think twice bef=
ore printing.</em></font></div></div></div>
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Thy Shizzle=
<span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:thyshizzle@outlook.com" target=3D"=
_blank">thyshizzle@outlook.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Nah don't =
make blocks 20mb, then you are slowing down block propagation and blowing o=
ut conf tikes as a result. Just decrease the time it takes to make a 1mb bl=
ock, then you still see the same propagation
times today and just increase the transaction throughput.</div>
</div>
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<hr>
<span style=3D"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt;font-weight:bo=
ld">From:
</span><span style=3D"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><a hre=
f=3D"mailto:jim@ergophobia.org" target=3D"_blank">Jim Phillips</a></span><b=
r>
<span style=3D"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt;font-weight:bo=
ld">Sent:
</span><span style=3D"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">=E2=80=
=8E26/=E2=80=8E05/=E2=80=8E2015 12:27 PM</span><br>
<span style=3D"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt;font-weight:bo=
ld">To:
</span><span style=3D"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><a hre=
f=3D"mailto:mike@plan99.net" target=3D"_blank">Mike Hearn</a></span><br>
<span style=3D"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt;font-weight:bo=
ld">Cc:
</span><span style=3D"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><a hre=
f=3D"mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_blank">Bi=
tcoin Dev</a></span><br>
<span style=3D"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt;font-weight:bo=
ld">Subject:
</span><span style=3D"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Re: [B=
itcoin-development] No Bitcoin For You</span><br>
<br>
</div><div><div class=3D"h5">
<div>
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div><br>
<div>On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Mike Hearn <span dir=3D"ltr">
<<a href=3D"mailto:mike@plan99.net" target=3D"_blank">mike@plan99.net</a=
>></span> wrote:</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-=
left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>This meme about datacenter-sized nodes has to die. The Bitcoin wiki is=
down right now, but I showed years ago that you could keep up with VISA on=
a single well specced server with today's technology. Only people livi=
ng in a dreamworld think that Bitcoin
might actually have to match that level of transaction demand with today&#=
39;s hardware. As noted previously, "too many users" is simply no=
t a problem Bitcoin has .... and may never have!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<div>... And will certainly NEVER have if we can't solve the capacity p=
roblem SOON.=C2=A0</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In a former life, I was a capacity planner for Bank of America's m=
id-range server group. We had one hard and fast rule. When you are typicall=
y exceeding 75% of capacity on a given metric, it's time to expand capa=
city. Period. You
don't do silly things like adjusting the business model to disincentiv=
ize use. Unless there's some flaw in the system and it's leaking re=
sources, if usage has increased to the point where you are at or near the l=
imits of capacity, you expand capacity. It's
as simple as that, and I've found that same rule fits quite well in a =
number of systems.=C2=A0</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In Bitcoin, we're not leaking resources. There's no flaw. The =
system is performing as intended. Usage is increasing because it works so w=
ell, and there is huge potential for future growth as we identify more uses=
and attract more
users. There might be a few technical things we can do to reduce consumpti=
on, but the metric we're concerned with right now is how many transacti=
ons we can fit in a block. We've broken through the 75% marker and are =
regularly bumping up against the 100% limit.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It is time to stop debating this and take action to expand capacity. T=
he only questions that should remain are how much capacity do we add, and h=
ow soon can we do it. Given that most existing computer systems and network=
s can easily
handle 20MB blocks every 10 minutes, and given that that will increase cap=
acity 20-fold, I can't think of a single reason why we can't go to =
20MB as soon as humanly possible. And in a few years, when the average bloc=
k size is over 15MB, we bump it up again
to as high as we can go then without pushing typical computers or networks=
beyond their capacity. We can worry about ways to slow down growth without=
affecting the usefulness of Bitcoin as we get closer to the hard technical=
limits on our capacity.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And you know what else? If miners need higher fees to accommodate the =
costs of bigger blocks, they can configure their nodes to only mine transac=
tions with higher fees.. Let the miners decide how to charge enough to pay =
for their
costs. We don't need to cripple the network just for them.</div>
<div><br clear=3D"all">
<div>
<div>
<div>--
<div><b>James G. Phillips IV</b>=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://plus.google.com/u/=
0/113107039501292625391/posts" style=3D"font-size:x-small" target=3D"_blank=
"><img src=3D"https://ssl.gstatic.com/images/icons/gplus-16.png"></a>=C2=A0=
</div>
</div>
<div><font size=3D"1"><i>"Don't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Ai=
m for the company of immortals." -- David Ogilvy<br>
</i></font>
<div><font size=3D"1"><br>
</font></div>
</div>
<div><font size=3D"1"><img src=3D"http://findicons.com/files/icons/1156/fug=
ue/16/leaf.png">=C2=A0<em style=3D"font-family:verdana,geneva,sans-serif;li=
ne-height:16px;color:green">This message was created with 100% recycled ele=
ctrons. Please think twice before printing.</em></font></div>
<div><font size=3D"1"><em style=3D"font-family:verdana,geneva,sans-serif;li=
ne-height:16px;color:green"><br>
</em></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--e89a8f235739e5daff0516f33b0b--
|
