Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04D37BA6 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:26:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wg0-f41.google.com (mail-wg0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DB94124 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:26:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wgqq4 with SMTP id q4so19365599wgq.1 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:26:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=0f80tk0W2jqfnX2EPXQulcw0dMkjoyDZRvFompCt/cI=; b=OZ0lsn88sIna8Bvhkqh7dTJRGz/exC/nmAhVU+P+79h354dyb0cfpl4H9Di42oi7fe J5zFAiLbb8F0cuXkusmEse6/2rnHkZqA0jwZ3l2OE/F31t5WyYEBN9e+ojHHautKW3II mjUEXG4NB8jF4vC1oQsK4lRZq75kX/UtdwgbizuKynFA3hTYBfAHQFFlCnUXtE6Dn26L V/Kn522Jk8ri08yqrNIWT+gTgLEA3fzp7qjEOALl7w70oVmzdHwdZ1QBCSGZ1Y9HSjEb hpKMm5hE1yKY+oaQboVJnY89T9rdqaH4xN+3BkuKEF7JBEueg+bJHBoriUquCgC1Rx9w y4yw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.89.66 with SMTP id bm2mr6888361wib.6.1435091199061; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:26:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.137.38 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:26:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150623192838.GG30235@muck> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 22:26:38 +0200 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0444ec5b23f49a05193535e2 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@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Draft BIP : fixed-schedule block size increase X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:26:41 -0000 --f46d0444ec5b23f49a05193535e2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > >> Wladimir noted that 'The original presented intention of block size >> increase was a one-time "scaling" to grant time for more decentralizing >> solutions to develop' >> >> Comments? >> > > Consensus is that this process is too painful to go through once a year. > I agree. > If you believe we will need to go through this process once a year, we are not talking about a one-time scaling to grant time for more decentralizing solutions. It means you think we should keep scaling. I don't disagree there - as long as we're talking about scaling as availability of bandwidth, storage and processing power increase, there is no reason Bitcoin's blockchain can't grow proportionally. However, an initial bump 8 MB and the growth rate afterwards seem more like a no-effectively-limit-ever to me. I fear that the wish of not wanting to deal with - admittedly - a very hard problem, resulted here in throwing away several protections we currently have. And yes, I know you believe 8 MB won't be created immediately. I truly, honestly, do not think so either. But I prefer a system where I don't need to rely on anyone's guesses for the future. -- Pieter --f46d0444ec5b23f49a05193535e2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Gavin Andresen <g= avinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
=
=
On T= ue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
Wladimir noted that 'The original presente= d intention of block size
increase was a one-time "scaling" to grant time for more decentra= lizing
solutions to develop'

Comments?

Consensus is that this= process is too painful to go through once a year.=C2=A0 I agree.
=

If you believe we will n= eed to go through this process once a year, we are not talking about a one-= time scaling to grant time for more decentralizing solutions. It means you = think we should keep scaling. I don't disagree there - as long as we= 9;re talking about scaling as availability of bandwidth, storage and proces= sing power increase, there is no reason Bitcoin's blockchain can't = grow proportionally.

However, an initial bump 8 MB and th= e growth rate afterwards seem more like a no-effectively-limit-ever to me.<= br>
I fear that the wish of not wanting to deal with - admitt= edly - a very hard problem, resulted here in throwing away several protecti= ons we currently have. And yes, I know you believe 8 MB won't be create= d immediately. I truly, honestly, do not think so either. But I prefer a sy= stem where I don't need to rely on anyone's guesses for the future.=

--
Pieter


--f46d0444ec5b23f49a05193535e2--