In-Reply-To: <CALgxB7udA85BWetBGc-RN=72ZtVPK9Q5HW8YRDKA08M38XqJqQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALgxB7udA85BWetBGc-RN=72ZtVPK9Q5HW8YRDKA08M38XqJqQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:21:25 +0000
To: Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com>, bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Message-ID: <1EF70EBC-8BB8-4A93-8591-52B2B0335F6C@petertodd.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Proposed Compromise to the Block Size Limit
Precedence: list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256


On 27 June 2015 10:39:51 GMT-04:00, Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com> 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-----