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
|
Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 328DFB66
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:30:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx-out03.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1488CAD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:30:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101])
by mx-out03.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DF4924C38;
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:30:51 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
Ryan J Martin <rjmarti2@millersville.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:30:49 +0200
Message-ID: <1715389.dpD6Bbpm7b@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <127281C1AA02374F8AAD9EE04FAE878A0218E8B825@STUDMail1.muad.local>
References: <CAFzgq-xizPMNqfvW11nUhd6HmfZu8aGjcR9fshEsf6o5HOt_dA@mail.gmail.com>
<2349f523-942c-ffb9-7af2-5cc81264888f@gmail.com>
<127281C1AA02374F8AAD9EE04FAE878A0218E8B825@STUDMail1.muad.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:57:54 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:30:55 -0000
On Thursday, 30 March 2017 07:23:31 CEST Ryan J Martin via bitcoin-dev=20
wrote:
> The original post and the assorted limit proposals---lead me to
> something I think is worth reiterating: assuming Bitcoin adoption
> continues to grow at similar or accelerating rates, then eventually the
> mempool is going to be filled with thousands of txs at all times whether
> block limits are 1MB or 16MB
This is hopefully true. :)
There is an unbounded amount of demand for block space, and as such it=20
doesn=E2=80=99t benefit anyone if the amount of free transactions get out o=
f hand.=20
Because freeloaders would definitely be able to completely suffocate Bitcoi=
n.
In the mail posted by OP he makes clear that this is a proposal for a hard=
=20
fork to change the block size *limit*. The actual block size would not be=20
changed at the same time, it will continue being set based on market values=
=20
or whatever we decide between now and then.
The block size itself should be set based on the amount of fees being paid=
=20
to miners to make a block.
What we want is a true fee-market where the miner can decide to make a bloc=
k=20
smaller to get people to pay more fees, because if we were to go to 16MB=20
blocks in one go, the cost of the miner would go up, but his reward based o=
n=20
fees will go down!
A block so big that 100% of the transactions will always be mined in the=20
next block will just cause a large section of people to no longer feel the=
=20
need to pay fees.
As such I don=E2=80=99t fear the situation where the block size limit goes =
up a lot=20
in one go, because it is not in anyone=E2=80=99s interest to make the actua=
l block=20
size follow.
=2D-=20
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
|
