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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1Yy2TP-0000uw-8Y
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 28 May 2015 18:24:07 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.217.180 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.217.180; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-lb0-f180.google.com;
Received: from mail-lb0-f180.google.com ([209.85.217.180])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Yy2TO-0002Tq-Eh
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 28 May 2015 18:24:07 +0000
Received: by lbbqq2 with SMTP id qq2so33973291lbb.3
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 28 May 2015 11:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.239.133 with SMTP id vs5mr3989586lac.75.1432837440149;
Thu, 28 May 2015 11:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.90.75 with HTTP; Thu, 28 May 2015 11:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2BaKwhpPgcUHWAHswOmUeFLgEk4ysrn4+73qNzWDJ=yQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator>
<CABsx9T3-zxCAagAS0megd06xvG5n-3tUL9NUK9TT3vt7XNL9Tg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP3VCaFsW4+gPm2kCJ9z7oVUZYVaeNf=_cJWEWwh4ZxiPQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T21zjHyO-nh1aSBM3z4Bg015O0rOfYq7=Sy4mf=QxUVQA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2BaKwhpPgcUHWAHswOmUeFLgEk4ysrn4+73qNzWDJ=yQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 14:23:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T3nCJ-w_v-yEbEE2Ytb+xC65mhYqhoAhoOHw9tkPpG0TA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134ce26a41e8c0517287652
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
(gavinandresen[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: 1Yy2TO-0002Tq-Eh
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step
function
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: Thu, 28 May 2015 18:24:07 -0000
--001a1134ce26a41e8c0517287652
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> As noted, many miners just accept the defaults. With your proposed change
>> their target would effectively *drop* from 1mb to 800kb today, which
>> seems crazy. That's the exact opposite of what is needed right now.
>>
>
> I am very skeptical about this idea.
>
By the time a hard fork can happen, I expect average block size will be
above 500K.
Would you support a rule that was "larger of 1MB or 2x average size" ? That
is strictly better than the situation we're in today.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
--001a1134ce26a41e8c0517287652
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T=
hu, May 28, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Mike Hearn <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:mike@plan99.net" target=3D"_blank">mike@plan99.net</a>></span> wrot=
e:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-l=
eft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_e=
xtra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,2=
04,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_extra">As noted, many miners just accept the defaults. With you=
r proposed change their target would effectively <b>drop</b>=C2=A0from 1mb =
to 800kb today, which seems crazy. That's the exact opposite of what is=
needed right now.<br></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquo=
te><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left=
:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extr=
a"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>I am very skeptical about=
this idea.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>By the =
time a hard fork can happen, I expect average block size will be above 500K=
.</div><div><br></div><div>Would you support a rule that was "larger o=
f 1MB or 2x average size" ? That is strictly better than the situation=
we're in today.</div></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_s=
ignature">--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></div>
</div></div>
--001a1134ce26a41e8c0517287652--
|
