Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Sj4un-0007v3-T6 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 08:44:57 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Sj4un-0001Ho-8l for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 08:44:57 +0000 Received: by werg55 with SMTP id g55so2860371wer.34 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 01:44:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.142.200 with SMTP id i50mr6367951wej.47.1340613890986; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 01:44:50 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.254.232 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 01:44:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FE7458E.2020908@justmoon.de> References: <4FE7458E.2020908@justmoon.de> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:44:50 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Dlor51hVBhSxD1lDJiHhnSfGQyg Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Stefan Thomas Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) 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 (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 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: 1Sj4un-0001Ho-8l Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Enforcing inflation rules for SPV clients X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 08:44:58 -0000 > Very interesting for you to bring this up. I had a similar idea for a > totally different use case. Greg recently pointed out an interesting > dilemma saying that (significantly) larger blocks would lead to > centralization. Yeah. I am still unsure that this really holds. Bitcoin moves fast, but even so, unless there are a few more SatoshiDice-like events and the way people use transactions changes dramatically we're a long way from gigabyte sized blocks. And once we get there, technology will probably have improved to the point where it doesn't seem like a big deal anymore. Of course we have debated this many times already. Maybe again at the next meetup :-)