MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADm_WcbQog_UCV=JPHyqTRxKbaGY7jedtHE_D8jJSe_thMg05w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBjOj9eXiDG0F6G54SVKkStF_1HRu2wzGqtFF5X_NAWy4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_Wca+ow4pMzN7SyKjsMdFo0wuUerYYjf5xKs5G_2Q2PzMmA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBg=sn7djO_8H16NDg7S7m7_0eTcrgLVofMWQ2ANz+jw9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_WcbQog_UCV=JPHyqTRxKbaGY7jedtHE_D8jJSe_thMg05w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 20:34:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBhrBUSfPdMjbLthLEFD17zBC3LoWf9LvZsOD1Vp0D78BQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160aa48a8a20005196ffd1b
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks
Precedence: list

--089e0160aa48a8a20005196ffd1b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

> If you wait until the need to increase block size

It is this sentence I disagree with. Why would there be a need? Bitcoin
provides utility at any block size, and potentially more with larger blocks.

But no matter what, I believe the economy will adapt to what is available.
And setting a precedent that increasing the size "because of a need" is
reasonable is to me essentially the same as saying the size should forever
scale to whatever people want.

I believe the most important effect of a limit block size - people deciding
not to use (on chain) Bitcoin transactions, is already happening, and it
will keep happening at any scale.

Either the resulting market is one which can live with high variability in
confirmation times, and blocks will end up being nearly full. Or maybe the
current fill level is what is acceptable, and we don't see much growth
beyond this, only a change in what it is used for.

-- 
Pieter

--089e0160aa48a8a20005196ffd1b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt; If you wait until the need to increase block size </p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">It is this sentence I disagree with. Why would there be a ne=
ed? Bitcoin provides utility at any block size, and potentially more with l=
arger blocks.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">But no matter what, I believe the economy will adapt to what=
 is available. And setting a precedent that increasing the size &quot;becau=
se of a need&quot; is reasonable is to me essentially the same as saying th=
e size should forever scale to whatever people want.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I believe the most important effect of a limit block size - =
people deciding not to use (on chain) Bitcoin transactions, is already happ=
ening, and it will keep happening at any scale.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Either the resulting market is one which can live with high =
variability in confirmation times, and blocks will end up being nearly full=
. Or maybe the current fill level is what is acceptable, and we don&#39;t s=
ee much growth beyond this, only a change in what it is used for.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">-- <br>
Pieter<br>
</p>

--089e0160aa48a8a20005196ffd1b--