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
|
Return-Path: <kanzure@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B1508EB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Aug 2015 18:35:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-la0-f47.google.com (mail-la0-f47.google.com
[209.85.215.47])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CA64246
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Aug 2015 18:35:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by lagz9 with SMTP id z9so26795170lag.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 07 Aug 2015 11:35:29 -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=qUreCvT2gPGm898o25rkjrj2592iqHTXUzVNBvDwLqo=;
b=Ap9z/BUHzGVVdl1hV2iMlXMHIRX+bsiOZutgyLsnlVcm7fYKWlpf//fzqAoT4uszbP
BYa7pdv218468/tQ3luxyhy0GDlcMALZ9TmENRrgLLXTrmUejJ+NFwwf/m4bqXwaOaQH
OGre6aAWh442U8Iy1a01mpWJhVMCNygA453R7Ru5KqSh2z+TTswTyxtFAtSQN4yMP7Nc
mQS9nz1bf2+j8fnoRLL2gBD6Eb7I/4i66KaRnomfmw9h2UawgyXPJtsU+n9lhzMvEHEo
B9Mp6Av7SvkRKweLyGn3nCoChLSfXkFoVfd9iGLUHAr24dETKaTjHmK5pIHgCgFznCiv
mUWg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.130.7 with SMTP id oa7mr8624893lbb.30.1438972529723;
Fri, 07 Aug 2015 11:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.152.18.166 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 11:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6786132febd22f90c4107285920d76ca@xbt.hk>
References: <CABsx9T16fH+56isq95m4+QWsKwP==tf75ep8ghnEcBoV4OtZJA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBgOt=qhQVZv5P-4mcD75=L4PKgOfRqhyB6FZdSYQajrwQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T10y6-=c7Qg6jysnf38wRX3NA3wWozxGfE+mEYJvPeqWA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBiaT-2sjedA1mLOQo+q7=DjJ2yRuy7E4Gb3Wn8R-DzRTQ@mail.gmail.com>
<6786132febd22f90c4107285920d76ca@xbt.hk>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 13:35:29 -0500
Message-ID: <CABaSBaxxopW0yZr0Bhmit3d=QDcGp=XNVmbGFhawhhQx4p4m9g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
To: jl2012@xbt.hk, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a8b0079d190051cbce6a8
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process
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, 07 Aug 2015 18:35:32 -0000
--047d7b3a8b0079d190051cbce6a8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:17 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> No, I'm not trolling. I really want someone to tell me why we
> should/shouldn't reduce the block size. Are we going to have more or less
> full nodes if we reduce the block size?
Some arguments have floated around that even in the absence of "causing an
increase in the number of full nodes", that a reduction of the max block
size might be beneficial for other reasons, such as bandwidth saturation
benefits. Also less time spent validating transactions because of the fewer
transactions.
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
--047d7b3a8b0079d190051cbce6a8
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 F=
ri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:17 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a=
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bi=
tcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;p=
adding-left:1ex">No, I'm not trolling. I really want someone to tell me=
why we should/shouldn't reduce the block size. Are we going to have mo=
re or less full nodes if we reduce the block size?</blockquote></div><br>So=
me arguments have floated around that even in the absence of "causing =
an increase in the number of full nodes", that a reduction of the max =
block size might be beneficial for other reasons, such as bandwidth saturat=
ion benefits. Also less time spent validating transactions because of the f=
ewer transactions.=C2=A0<br><div><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_signature">-=
Bryan<br><a href=3D"http://heybryan.org/" target=3D"_blank">http://heybrya=
n.org/</a><br>1 512 203 0507</div>
</div></div>
--047d7b3a8b0079d190051cbce6a8--
|
