Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B805D5AA for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:36:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.bihthai.net (unknown [5.255.87.165]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7606E214 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:36:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.8.0.6] (unknown [10.8.0.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: venzen) by mail.bihthai.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB7AF20B46; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:38:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <55BA5283.2000405@mail.bihthai.net> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 23:36:19 +0700 From: Venzen Khaosan Reply-To: venzen@mail.bihthai.net Organization: Bihthai Bai Mai User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= , Bitcoin Dev References: In-Reply-To: OpenPGP: id=1CF07D66; url=pool.sks-keyservers.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size following technological growth 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: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:36:26 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/30/2015 10:12 PM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote: [snip] > But even if I'm the only one that considers a "technological > de-growth" possible, I don't think is wise to rely on pseudo-laws > like Moore's or Nielsen’s so-called "laws". Stealing a quote from > another thread: You raise a good point: "de-growth" Assuming linear (or exponential) growth without sympathetic contraction at some time in the future would make our future selves look back and smile at the youthful exuberance. The pseudo-laws you mention (Moore's etc) do not cater for contraction and, you're right, scaling UP plans should also wisely make provision for scaling DOWN, for when the need arises. > > So I would prefer a more limited solution like bip102 (even though > I would prefer to have some simulations leading to a concrete > value (even if it's bigger) rather than using 2MB's arbitrary > number. I just had a look your existing Size N testnet code https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6382 and i'll set up a node over the weekend and post its address in that PR's conversation. Do you or anyone else already have a node running? what blocksize? > > Those are my 3 cents. > > [1] > https://philohist.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/nietzsche-uses-history.pdf Thanks, > will broaden my horizon soon! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVulKBAAoJEGwAhlQc8H1mUSAH/Rmlek3uitGyIritwyDO4Kf7 BfynlztWmPbnWl7aFYQCS+aIPgS+BvQWIiA0dTI633yj071DWEvcGDzhtcVrk0KT //Ty8bp8yqsJRdd+SWgnqUzSmB6TI31F3ssxjDfSZhKiy8YF4+pKqjerQmBqlgLY sKts3md8N8qWV5Onjd7ea+7SoFjhJ6GOm2UFgxO27LCeDH5Ax5fG4MsolNg3MBTT 5y7Hfo1YeFXRwRRSy5uCSSR0afBb8Wauqi/EnSYDuMe5HBcLztc7icXa6oLTlvBC sfYswasmLRbvHLs4Vy51g75+k60QBjgFKtVlPXJXGN2trbcedF0UbDmenxGqJaI= =rJPX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----