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
|
Return-Path: <bram@bittorrent.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 917664A3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 11 Dec 2016 21:53:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f181.google.com (mail-io0-f181.google.com
[209.85.223.181])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2437C134
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 11 Dec 2016 21:53:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-io0-f181.google.com with SMTP id p42so147150812ioo.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 11 Dec 2016 13:53:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=bittorrent-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=S63mhj7VsB6aURk7ABCTvXh04EURCN5qrFkgXye5Wc8=;
b=FjFspOgQK81coHSNXE73b6wxRpX01B7f4p2e6RapMDAQV6qhwl8j9p0yJ9LO53TNTO
aSTqZK57k0RH5bArhrwvS1QmGqThD4ywz8Xf5mYRFzS8i7/Fzr2rTSi198UVP8PmVYSv
V8b7NyaAGaCtV3CFqgL6Fivos8nRldF0rQXDkwQ2+s0RCoYxiGBLw4QZJ0oH5+1f/gZr
2meO0ZUxHYyUna9pXbdnVztMl+u01xPHWwuX6DMrPP9vjy3ZTNKzYYMlordOZZH3icUW
nIT4SNCz1JE3Cy60sfM8vo6x77ZSWqC+yFAs1zJaKk7d7wC8/4fBcUn0uwV+Ap5wF9tB
iDzA==
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:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=S63mhj7VsB6aURk7ABCTvXh04EURCN5qrFkgXye5Wc8=;
b=REDZ5AYE+6TXBaiFxfn7TopPXBh1qWkVYePXqDCCbQTzSz1lVddY/OZml0azFx8WJO
7/7KTb2qruVjZhQMi7g2Z466N/Z1dIzBlpvmkOFV36hArKLysZNytDVn27T7uCvgOX2p
Kcuj7d8+LpnX1mp3INPu4b83O9RveLnEPtn6efYOxmOIJDp03K9rsU41IQvNCqFv0cjj
WwgMA3NmbwwwcxYiLmKYy6hPlwSYBpLMb3oKeSTQJhG9ra1ZRq9wfpndnRUwAryCHct5
G4Wr2qGM2O1+v+Z3G371Z++GwfwwK8Hvr7LOQDU5prlEfcopwT3ZKlgWAfffZgqrqrhg
7bcQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02WrYLXyOFbXUFYg12vJ69rKBVM//lIWbQjnndRsIkQJQStSz5j8C1ttRIxUYV2Tqd6SKdVkhxQF2/l71oI
X-Received: by 10.107.136.164 with SMTP id s36mr79503037ioi.214.1481493227518;
Sun, 11 Dec 2016 13:53:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.36.224.199 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Dec 2016 13:53:46 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAGCNRJqEVo6cMOLeENNue3=2mAHnWL2ViUKXVXAke_W0CXKKEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGCNRJqdu7DMC+AMR4mYKRAYStRMKVGqbnjtEfmzcoeMij5u=A@mail.gmail.com>
<c318f76d-0904-2e1b-453b-60179f8209bb@sky-ip.org>
<CAGCNRJrLM2ZR9qCvuNfyr2mUk50szzHnG-crmpv_3cH=xGxYOg@mail.gmail.com>
<d691b6f8-0c15-d293-0027-dcce145fbe8e@sky-ip.org>
<CAGCNRJo_VE9nBhP=oY7hV0UJ-OSuTBxu+Tf28_utJW8qi7rzxg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADvTj4rC6OyCFCwpExRdRF_ZVU_ONjtb3PycR3T_fkm6d=b_Wg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGCNRJqEVo6cMOLeENNue3=2mAHnWL2ViUKXVXAke_W0CXKKEg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bram Cohen <bram@bittorrent.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 13:53:46 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+KqGkqwfkKRBcmk78O_Ki9BdinG=p68+LEN_i4E5jLmfvCd6w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "t. khan" <teekhan42@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113eb2c290547e0543690540
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Managing block size the same way we do difficulty
(aka Block75)
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 21:53:48 -0000
--001a113eb2c290547e0543690540
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 1:40 PM, t. khan via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Block75 is not exponential scaling. It's true the max theoretical increase
> in the first year would be 7x, but the next year would be a max of 2x, and
> the next could only increase by 50% and so on.
>
With those limits there's very little reason to not simply have a fixed
schedule. Blocks are likely to all be full in the future anyway, with a
real fee market, and the idea that miners will be held back on block sizes
for worry about propagation delay is a myth, and even if it were true it
would favor collective pooling a lot, which would be a very bad thing.
--001a113eb2c290547e0543690540
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 S=
un, Dec 11, 2016 at 1:40 PM, t. khan via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><=
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid=
;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote"><div>Block75 is not exponential scaling. It's true t=
he max theoretical increase in the first year would be 7x, but the next yea=
r would be a max of 2x, and the next could only increase by 50% and so on.<=
/div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>With those limits t=
here's very little reason to not simply have a fixed schedule. Blocks a=
re likely to all be full in the future anyway, with a real fee market, and =
the idea that miners will be held back on block sizes for worry about propa=
gation delay is a myth, and even if it were true it would favor collective =
pooling a lot, which would be a very bad thing.</div></div></div></div>
--001a113eb2c290547e0543690540--
|
