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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1YzQFf-00009V-FU
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 01 Jun 2015 13:59:39 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.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-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YzQFe-0003nN-Hy
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 01 Jun 2015 13:59:39 +0000
Received: by lbbuc2 with SMTP id uc2so85054334lbb.2
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 01 Jun 2015 06:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.166.37 with SMTP id zd5mr20754694lbb.75.1433167172179;
Mon, 01 Jun 2015 06:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.90.75 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 06:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAFzgq-x+-s_Nbt4z-C4SWQbHdPr159AmL2JvpP0zg1axM+Vwcw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <554BE0E1.5030001@bluematt.me>
<CAFzgq-xByQ1E_33_m3UpXQFUkGc78HKnA=7XXMshANDuTkNsvA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T0kbRe31LMwk499MQUw225f5GGd67GfhXBezHmDqxkioA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFzgq-z5WCznGhbOexS0XESNGAVauw45ewEV-1eMij7yDT61=Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFzgq-zTybEQyGz0nq90u5n5JZcJzxQS_XKaTpr5POJi-tHM6A@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T2L5bi-c63-KqSifOMeNayUWSPo0_Hx8VjMR_4=kC3ixg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE28kUT61qYxqV0mOqw5Dan=eMiCvnG2SnsAeWzOWTxwLydyeQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T2hfpts5y_M6PdDcxmq9Q2smesJ0Nmp9a9iyPD_MoPC9g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE28kUTZV3YsaSCX2d5YwLetnf=f+bOWGrwxLXdZFywTZ=+Pjg@mail.gmail.com>
<CALC81CNq-GK5q6R4bmgHL5_Ej2+cZrtQMMLVmuhvMxkZokM3hQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE28kUQr+kUPak67tcNQGGscUXtJiD1LiXfjdD8_LMUWyVdR5w@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP12WAcUOJp5UYg4pfWL7_4WiAHWWZAoaxAb5xB+qAP4Xg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFzgq-ykeMeWF-ndgSm9upHTe8j6ZFYhBQjFs_WSz1oVd29j7g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFzgq-x+-s_Nbt4z-C4SWQbHdPr159AmL2JvpP0zg1axM+Vwcw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 09:59:31 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T2aEvPs68pQA-KrtaDQFcTTtiB36eqKAcJRkiOFQr6WsA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c382d0339c6e0517753c95
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
0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1YzQFe-0003nN-Hy
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements
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: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 13:59:39 -0000
--001a11c382d0339c6e0517753c95
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com> wrote:
> I cannot believe why Gavin (who seems to have difficulty to spell my
> name correctly.) insists on his 20MB proposal regardless the
> community. BIP66 has been introduced for a long time and no one knows
> when the 95% goal can be met. This change to the block max size must
> take one year or more to be adopted. We should increase the limit and
> increase it now. 20MB is simply too big and too risky, sometimes we
> need compromise and push things forward. I agree with any solution
> lower than 10MB in its first two years.
>
>
Thanks, that's useful!
What do other people think? Would starting at a max of 8 or 4 get
consensus? Scaling up a little less than Nielsen's Law of Internet
Bandwidth predicts for the next 20 years? (I think predictability is
REALLY important).
I chose 20 because all of my testing shows it to be safe, and all of my
back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate the costs are reasonable.
If consensus is "8 because more than order-of-magnitude increases are
scary" -- ok.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
--001a11c382d0339c6e0517753c95
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 M=
on, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Chun Wang <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mail=
to:1240902@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">1240902@gmail.com</a>></span> wr=
ote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border=
-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I cannot believe why Gavin (who seem=
s to have difficulty to spell my<br>
name correctly.) insists on his 20MB proposal regardless the<br>
community. BIP66 has been introduced for a long time and no one knows<br>
when the 95% goal can be met. This change to the block max size must<br>
take one year or more to be adopted. We should increase the limit and<br>
increase it now. 20MB is simply too big and too risky, sometimes we<br>
need compromise and push things forward. I agree with any solution<br>
lower than 10MB in its first two years.<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div>=
<div>Thanks, that's useful!</div><div><br></div><div>What do other peop=
le think?=C2=A0 Would starting at a max of 8 or 4 get consensus?=C2=A0 Scal=
ing up a little less than Nielsen's Law of Internet Bandwidth predicts =
for the next 20 years? =C2=A0(I think predictability is REALLY important).<=
/div><div><br></div><div>I chose 20 because all of my testing shows it to b=
e safe, and all of my back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate the costs =
are reasonable.</div><div><br></div><div>If consensus is "8 because mo=
re than order-of-magnitude increases are scary" -- ok.</div></div><div=
><br></div>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_signature">--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></=
div>
</div></div>
--001a11c382d0339c6e0517753c95--
|
