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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com>) id 1Yyosc-0006u7-3k
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 30 May 2015 22:05:22 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.54 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.54; envelope-from=alex.mizrahi@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wg0-f54.google.com;
Received: from mail-wg0-f54.google.com ([74.125.82.54])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Yyosb-000644-7v
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 30 May 2015 22:05:22 +0000
Received: by wgv5 with SMTP id 5so87255312wgv.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 30 May 2015 15:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.208.7 with SMTP id ma7mr7800491wic.0.1433023515242; Sat,
30 May 2015 15:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.27.102.73 with HTTP; Sat, 30 May 2015 15:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0kbRe31LMwk499MQUw225f5GGd67GfhXBezHmDqxkioA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <554BE0E1.5030001@bluematt.me>
<CAFzgq-xByQ1E_33_m3UpXQFUkGc78HKnA=7XXMshANDuTkNsvA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T0kbRe31LMwk499MQUw225f5GGd67GfhXBezHmDqxkioA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 01:05:15 +0300
Message-ID: <CAE28kUTSgrU0kY6zLHrZXAAP+XD2H=NqT8rE3jt6Cp+1qGkHRg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c383ce94b5fd051753c994
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
(alex.mizrahi[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
X-Headers-End: 1Yyosb-000644-7v
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 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: Sat, 30 May 2015 22:05:22 -0000
--001a11c383ce94b5fd051753c994
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> Why 2 MB ?
>
Why 20 MB? Do you anticipate 20x transaction count growth in 2016?
Why not grow it by 1 MB per year?
This is a safer option, I don't think that anybody claims that 2 MB blocks
will be a problem.
And in 10 years when we get to 10 MB we'll get more evidence as to whether
network can handle 10 MB blocks.
So this might be a solution which would satisfy both sides:
* people who are concerned about block size growth will have an
opportunity to stop it before it grows too much (e.g. with a soft fork),
* while people who want bigger blocks will get an equivalent of 25% per
year growth within the first 10 years, which isn't bad, is it?
So far I haven't heard any valid arguments against linear growth.
--001a11c383ce94b5fd051753c994
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"><div=
>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;b=
order-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"=
gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><span class=3D""><div></div></span>=
<div>Why 2 MB ?</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Why=
20 MB? Do you anticipate 20x transaction count growth in 2016?</div><div><=
br></div><div>Why not grow it by 1 MB per year?</div><div>This is a safer o=
ption, I don't think that anybody claims that 2 MB blocks will be a pro=
blem.</div><div>And in 10 years when we get to 10 MB we'll get more evi=
dence as to whether network can handle 10 MB blocks.</div><div><br></div><d=
iv>So this might be a solution which would satisfy both sides:</div><div>=
=C2=A0 * =C2=A0people who are concerned about block size growth will have a=
n opportunity to stop it before it grows too much (e.g. with a soft fork),<=
/div><div>=C2=A0 * =C2=A0while people who want bigger blocks will get an eq=
uivalent of 25% per year growth within the first 10 years, which isn't =
bad, is it?</div><div><br></div><div>So far I haven't heard any valid a=
rguments against linear growth.</div></div></div></div>
--001a11c383ce94b5fd051753c994--
|
