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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <tomh@thinlink.com>) id 1YzaI4-0000nI-HJ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 02 Jun 2015 00:42:48 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-pd0-f173.google.com ([209.85.192.173])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YzaI3-00041N-Cf
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 02 Jun 2015 00:42:48 +0000
Received: by pdjm12 with SMTP id m12so37004888pdj.3
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 01 Jun 2015 17:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=B4asj+2JCNVlGQd9EVUCXO2r6heIyRTJVKcejFa0UBs=;
b=hZdu4NZp57262flzo6aKwUcPfegFjn4K56dAdGy1LwnxaRPSyc4/zDnm+bJGhgTwEQ
xVKjkiznjG5gql+lKwezfwB6+DB6C3Xvx4na7GUDOSkYK3Z1Pnu5e2B45BKGfa1kSZNR
z47ub9kSdZliiBmb7mpMXRecMr3I7fgRMhN9oDWtjykY7P2trlqk/wwPbeLyJPvohE25
GtL9wBJCg3UvOrKY77A80LeOYfwXEEJxOdmlC44jqeqROWsFGyISxtJJAJJrLCYd4KeY
IM0YpOFvuB5FGizQsb0e4o5G+cxtZ1nFvgNs9oE8t/VnZT9PAO9spTWV5WwrGkqG8dC/
37zw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnXobFp5iNPtO94kNQ+Q4cRTjCvl7eoWVsbPsuPiGZDi3/SK5vPlDNziYSvY4ok4V+y7FEn
X-Received: by 10.70.136.67 with SMTP id py3mr45157001pdb.112.1433205761371;
Mon, 01 Jun 2015 17:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net.
[99.8.65.117]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id
nz2sm15465446pbb.40.2015.06.01.17.42.39
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Mon, 01 Jun 2015 17:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <556CFC01.9030309@thinlink.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 17:42:41 -0700
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
References: <CALqxMTHfU5+1ezP-Jnn5obpd621EHwpstseFzTjAvOdhDkfj=g@mail.gmail.com> <CANEZrP3SGdpSkpi-1eBiUMD74NPnAr7sW=eZ8WCz7PU6FVQaBA@mail.gmail.com>
<CALqxMTE57mEiG7VuEDSfBDswCeYPWRoa1DEY9iL=P0xLFu8YCA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTE57mEiG7VuEDSfBDswCeYPWRoa1DEY9iL=P0xLFu8YCA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1YzaI3-00041N-Cf
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] soft-fork block size increase (extension
blocks)
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: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 00:42:48 -0000
On 6/1/2015 10:21 AM, Adam Back wrote:
> if it stays as is for a year, in a wait and see, reduce spam, see
> fee-pressure take effect as it has before, work on improving improve
> decentralisation metrics, relay latency, and do a blocksize increment
> to kick the can if-and-when it becomes necessary and in the mean-time
> try to do something more long-term ambitious about scale rather than
> volume.
What's your estimate of the lead time required to kick the can,
if-and-when it becomes necessary?
The other time-series I've seen all plot an average block size. That's
misleading, because there's a distribution of block sizes. If you bin
by retarget interval and plot every single block, you get this
http://i.imgur.com/5Gfh9CW.png
The max block size has clearly been in play for 8 months already.
|
