Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Yqk7m-00081b-QE for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 May 2015 15:23:38 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.220.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.169; envelope-from=etotheipi@gmail.com; helo=mail-qk0-f169.google.com; Received: from mail-qk0-f169.google.com ([209.85.220.169]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Yqk7m-0000Lt-1n for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 May 2015 15:23:38 +0000 Received: by qkhg7 with SMTP id g7so50115290qkh.2 for ; Fri, 08 May 2015 08:23:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.101.81 with SMTP id t75mr5667251qge.9.1431098612590; Fri, 08 May 2015 08:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.28] (c-69-143-204-74.hsd1.md.comcast.net. [69.143.204.74]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id j62sm3783530qhc.33.2015.05.08.08.23.28 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 08 May 2015 08:23:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <554CD4EC.8020105@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 11:23:24 -0400 From: Alan Reiner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me> <554BA032.4040405@bluematt.me> <554BBDA2.7040508@gmail.com> <554C1410.7050406@thinlink.com> <554C45E4.1020208@thinlink.com> In-Reply-To: <554C45E4.1020208@thinlink.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) 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 (etotheipi[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -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 0.5 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Yqk7m-0000Lt-1n Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase 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: Fri, 08 May 2015 15:23:38 -0000 On 05/08/2015 01:13 AM, Tom Harding wrote: > On 5/7/2015 7:09 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> G proposed 20MB blocks, AFAIK - 140 tps >> A proposed 100MB blocks - 700 tps >> For ref, >> Paypal is around 115 tps >> VISA is around 2000 tps (perhaps 4000 tps peak) >> For reference, I'm not "proposing" 100 MB blocks right now. I was simply suggesting that if Bitcoin is to *ultimately* achieve the goal of being a globally useful payment rails, 7tps is embarrassingly small. Even with off-chain transactions. It should be a no-brainer that block size has to go up. My goal was to bring some long-term perspective into the discussion. I don't know if 100 MB blocks will *actually* be necessary for Bitcoin in 20 years, but it's feasible that it will be. It's an open, global payments system. Therefore, we shouldn't be arguing about whether 1 MB blocks is sufficient--it's very clearly not. And admitting this as a valid point is also an admission that not everyone in the world will be able to run a full node in 20 years. I don't think there's a solution that can accommodate all future scenarios, nor that we can even find a solution right now that avoids more hard forks in the future. But the goal of "everyone should be able to download and verify the world's global transactions on a smartphone" is a non-starter and should not drive decisions.