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
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
|
Return-Path: <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0081485
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 29 Jul 2015 00:55:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pd0-f170.google.com (mail-pd0-f170.google.com
[209.85.192.170])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D00E8F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 29 Jul 2015 00:55:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pdbnt7 with SMTP id nt7so79210815pdb.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:55:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
:message-id:references:to;
bh=1XWznLtKvurPgE319LJGFQpQ3KCZYvBRuifVLpk/1S4=;
b=l9dduS05WG7AT2hOcRgZExR91lPmAOQO34xaIhD1KMP8qhR+NmXonY68lgoW3deUVR
7DY7aZoF5Pv7SrzFjUBKLEiMdUHg72/1jKI/n2RwDaD/zwQZ7VPhyQ52zimLO691dm82
LP1T+/Zdl51O6mfAcAE/zy3WIQf2VNHjxI39cc8WkK7xDNGtgmC0eBlcr/OC5HLPpo6U
yvXLOhYkqnXbG3eraYtEAweqPmOJ2etZ8pPomCXHxltZTcIn0MgmFxcn/1BMp0qOw9sw
f3b9vg1F0s3bHUCZSpDsQaLUslzJoikUkIGKM1DK4UQwjF6G2vHm7Vep6hzFcuHGWy4e
jbZA==
X-Received: by 10.70.130.107 with SMTP id od11mr87587292pdb.145.1438131323942;
Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.107] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com.
[76.167.237.202]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
de2sm37307324pdb.15.2015.07.28.17.55.21
(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_028075CF-01EA-495A-9C79-DA8D992842AF";
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-sanb-vOt6YaDJhdT2CCmnqWYTBF204sBZ1=Dsveko7og@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:55:20 -0700
Message-Id: <35B780B8-7282-4C98-9A0D-C7774028E277@gmail.com>
References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com>
<D2CDA490-F04A-41EA-85F7-56BA5B052729@me.com>
<CAOG=w-sanb-vOt6YaDJhdT2CCmnqWYTBF204sBZ1=Dsveko7og@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn't
temporary
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: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 00:55:25 -0000
--Apple-Mail=_028075CF-01EA-495A-9C79-DA8D992842AF
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_6EADD47E-3D94-4AC3-AB98-C6E67D657F30"
--Apple-Mail=_6EADD47E-3D94-4AC3-AB98-C6E67D657F30
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
I agree that the historical reasons are irrelevant from an engineering =
perspective. But they still set a context for the discussion=E2=80=A6and =
might help shed some insight into the motivations behind some of the =
participants. It=E2=80=99s also good to know these things to counter =
arguments that start with =E2=80=9CBut Satoshi said that=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D=
What=E2=80=99s critically important to note is that several of the =
assumptions that were being made at the time this limit was decided have =
turned out wrong=E2=80=A6and that these other issues should probably be =
of greater concern and more highly prioritized in any discussion =
considering the merits of deploying potentially incompatible consensus =
rule changes. It seems if these other issues were fixed perhaps no block =
size limit would be required at all (as was originally hoped).
- Eric
> On Jul 28, 2015, at 5:46 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org> =
wrote:
>=20
> Does it matter even in the slightest why the block size limit was put =
in place? It does not. Bitcoin is a decentralized payment network, and =
the relationship between utility (block size) and decentralization is =
empirical. Why the 1MB limit was put in place at the time might be a =
historically interesting question, but it bears little relevance to the =
present engineering issues.
>=20
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>=20
> > Enter a =E2=80=9Ctemporary=E2=80=9D anti-spam measure - a one =
megabyte block size limit. Let=E2=80=99s test this out, then increase it =
once we see how things work. So far so good=E2=80=A6
> >
>=20
> The block size limit was put in place as an anti-DoS measure (monster =
blocks), not "anti-spam". It was never intended to have any economic =
effect, not on spam and not on any future fee market.
>=20
>=20
> jp
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev =
<https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
>=20
--Apple-Mail=_6EADD47E-3D94-4AC3-AB98-C6E67D657F30
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" =
class=3D"">I agree that the historical reasons are irrelevant from an =
engineering perspective. But they still set a context for the =
discussion=E2=80=A6and might help shed some insight into the motivations =
behind some of the participants. It=E2=80=99s also good to know these =
things to counter arguments that start with =E2=80=9CBut Satoshi said =
that=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D<div class=3D""><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">What=E2=80=99s critically important to =
note is that several of the assumptions that were being made at the time =
this limit was decided have turned out wrong=E2=80=A6and that these =
other issues should probably be of greater concern and more highly =
prioritized in any discussion considering the merits of deploying =
potentially incompatible consensus rule changes. It seems if these other =
issues were fixed perhaps no block size limit would be required at all =
(as was originally hoped).<br class=3D""><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">- Eric</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""><div><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D"">On =
Jul 28, 2015, at 5:46 PM, Mark Friedenbach <<a =
href=3D"mailto:mark@friedenbach.org" =
class=3D"">mark@friedenbach.org</a>> wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D"">Does it matter even in the slightest why the block size limit =
was put in place? It does not. Bitcoin is a decentralized payment =
network, and the relationship between utility (block size) and =
decentralization is empirical. Why the 1MB limit was put in place at the =
time might be a historically interesting question, but it bears little =
relevance to the present engineering issues.<br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra"><br class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, =
Jul 28, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman via bitcoin-dev <span =
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><<a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> =
wrote:<br class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 =
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D""><br=
class=3D"">
> Enter a =E2=80=9Ctemporary=E2=80=9D anti-spam measure - a one =
megabyte block size limit. Let=E2=80=99s test this out, then increase it =
once we see how things work. So far so good=E2=80=A6<br class=3D"">
><br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
</span>The block size limit was put in place as an anti-DoS measure =
(monster blocks), not "anti-spam". It was never intended to have any =
economic effect, not on spam and not on any future fee market.<br =
class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
jp<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
_______________________________________________<br class=3D"">
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br class=3D"">
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br class=3D"">
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"=
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<=
/a><br class=3D"">
</blockquote></div><br class=3D""></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></div></div></div></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_6EADD47E-3D94-4AC3-AB98-C6E67D657F30--
--Apple-Mail=_028075CF-01EA-495A-9C79-DA8D992842AF
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVuCR4AAoJEJNAI64YFENUR7cQAKvxddMCptFxkrm77Cf3f3Jg
/7J9QEYC/zG/fj0tHUoUyIIlr1xXfgccW30s+uTj+vTP87vzGwKZtdMoVI83i6oS
w7G2IHhT8J1YX23/ARi40dqYM5vQ2F+x+rbKWJa6iNIZw3DQWE7okCJHtGsiE88n
cbD3z1n831pLfHcOSrf4J9FjAxWQH/DwJ8HJcl6UzAyBByOJDr4363WG3IaKE3Mm
EeJQZUdCDKS0rWRieThCx9NQzMnVAelH5p5CHS1gvwQByEWw1Op72RN06yZy1nBi
TyKfYHbksim6T2NkNhF/QnC0PPpcRLv/kO0HaUynRH7rS+rVvbl9OuELHuTAsRS2
LQFLPtVCorMIpzZyalcESuXJ1y+PQ21cJx4lb/ZNJzWNiQLwqE4Z24PHqtW0R4t0
61MNAG4U2cFHPiwzq9TI2PxTGfAz+MTu7ld4ZxfAczWZEBitWZhYnn76IunJOVaJ
LtS5rU+LnyK3gpXphnvDfFJg5I4Uwp885SHctkvU4FsiTjuakyvMywsIhYfRO8cS
uKAotC3Ou7cLaoLiGFvfdYwUkKVaHiAnonXtEKYh8sqJoQmiCtnQHBgvbddc0KDa
oxZy+4QEtPp5lzWB+Wixf1wobEXxP0GlfXTZRsQyHursu7KjMRjGcWfHQPJsF76X
DhHA3R8cv7dXvl5s5TQu
=nNTS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_028075CF-01EA-495A-9C79-DA8D992842AF--
|
