Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60567BBC for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:21:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail148111.authsmtp.net (outmail148111.authsmtp.net [62.13.148.111]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBCF0118 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:21:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235]) by punt18.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5RFLr8Y003974; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 16:21:53 +0100 (BST) Received: from [33.91.28.142] (mf62d36d0.tmodns.net [208.54.45.246]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5RFLpjN018483 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 27 Jun 2015 16:21:52 +0100 (BST) In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 From: Peter Todd Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:21:25 +0000 To: Michael Naber , bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Message-ID: <1EF70EBC-8BB8-4A93-8591-52B2B0335F6C@petertodd.org> X-Server-Quench: 3d10bcd9-1ce0-11e5-b396-002590a15da7 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aAdMdAUUEkAaAgsB AmMbWlJeUlx7XGE7 aQpZcwBZfE5LQQdu VldNRFdNFUssBH53 el5ELBlzfwFOezB1 YU5mEHMPXUQoJhJ0 X08HQG0bZGY1bX1N U0leagNUcgZDfk5E bwQuUz1vNG8XDSg5 AwQ0PjZ0MThBHWx8 CjkXKkoVWksHVhU7 QggYGjAuBkBNWyJ7 MxwrYnQYG00Sen4z I1ZpfVMdMgN6 X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 208.54.45.246/465 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Proposed Compromise to the Block Size Limit 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: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:21:55 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 27 June 2015 10:39:51 GMT-04:00, Michael Naber wrote: >Compromise: Can we agree that raising the block size to a static 8MB >now >with a plan to increase it further should demand necessitate except in >the >special case above is a reasonable path forward? It's not a reasonable path forward right now given the lack of testing done with 8MB+ blocks, among many other problems. A way to help make that appear more reasonable would be to setup a 8MB testnet as I suggested, with two years or so of 8MB blocks in history as well as a large UTXO set to test performance characteristics. Of course, that'll be a 840GB download - if that's unreasonable you might want to ask why 8MB blocks are reasonable... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQE9BAEBCAAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJVjr9n AAoJEMCF8hzn9Lnc47AIAIIwu4maaJs4pAKpK00jQnhPNIQ8LPvijD/8vvyugA1z OLxlRrn8zs7JPFbxWOAzK2qzT1RksSd0gbXqWm/Saqk9CAG5LBp7Oq0HAVE23XYt 6BvyhjyhYaZjDrv+SZvlSjdl5xfpDNPMIXMi7XblKD9hm1GIUSVIYAOinOSVIy0B HlKyn/xc4MaO8DuzQcs0vsNMudVQFLMOLjMWz/7iv41NnB/Ujjzv/6845Z1g7Opf d5AfxhPHZixshqav/lF7ly7xQwSZZpoJCyFdtzCNG47EQmFYY9e22uy1KVzS7Zeo qYPi3KRx5+vFtHHJMDYG5EIMTwI4l/4+lY/Sd0CFWss= =0IOS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----