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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 663497AD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:55:06 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com
[209.85.212.177])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37B5219B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:55:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so33973889wic.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 04:55:03 -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
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=e/fdPp5CS9Y8QK28rRbKXGTGoDdl26OYpN8fVrwNMHE=;
b=OUEQRdZcMbuhI7pqYgldG08jpOXSg/2Dm0qos2pH0IkiQgYKmRSEOiDD8m/r8sGODa
sj+p025vDq6jhyJv56LyUzTCDTdnIRKyH8jllK1L9wZSszvb58MuXtyCkykbGAsUKjdY
VI071/qXIPDKzMqnnfnbwv6d7kyRzqwfYQkr1o53xi4kaDNGX8GLWdp0mKKmWl284zcC
BHpIvljAJp54+3h6Ke4bSh8wYK2MM/YTqHo5S1FCHZ4aQUmIVsvjwgnZD+SEdj8ych+x
f8hdfukJU6JqaghIbBEVqhQaWo3BmmCfcqtTgQPy9wKZrIA3orzTCZaW5DHYJ2XyxHzU
EB4A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk/Cb37je21Uzthl3PsypbSVgIm6aquYmqzDKJxvYJjlBY3c+yeA0P3G0vqmB4J/QIdy1kj
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.8.135 with SMTP id r7mr24056784wia.58.1439207703657;
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 04:55:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 04:55:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDpwMQzju+Gsoe3qMi60MPr7OAiSuigy3RdA1xh-SwFzbw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T16fH+56isq95m4+QWsKwP==tf75ep8ghnEcBoV4OtZJA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBgOt=qhQVZv5P-4mcD75=L4PKgOfRqhyB6FZdSYQajrwQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T10y6-=c7Qg6jysnf38wRX3NA3wWozxGfE+mEYJvPeqWA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDpwMQzju+Gsoe3qMi60MPr7OAiSuigy3RdA1xh-SwFzbw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:55:03 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDoz4NMEQuQj6UHCYYCwihZrEC4Az8xDvTBwiZDf9eQ7-w@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:55:06 -0000
Gavin, I interpret the absence of response to these questions as a
sign that everybody agrees that there's no other reason to increase
the consensus block size other than to avoid minimum market fees from
rising (above zero).
Feel free to correct that notion at any time by answering the
questions yourself.
In fact if any other "big block size advocate" thinks there's more
reason I would like to hear their reasons too.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:
>
> On Aug 7, 2015 5:55 PM, "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, and
>> yes, fear of Bad Things Happening as we run up against the 1MB limit is =
one
>> of the reasons.
>
> What are the other reasons?
>
>> I take the opinion of smart engineers who actually do resource planning
>> and have seen what happens when networks run out of capacity very seriou=
sly.
>
> When "the network runs out of capacity" (when we hit the limit) do we exp=
ect
> anything to happen apart from minimum market fees rising (above zero)?
> Obviously any consequences of fees rising are included in this concern.
|
