MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 10:39:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CALgxB7udA85BWetBGc-RN=72ZtVPK9Q5HW8YRDKA08M38XqJqQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04447e1d48340b051980d40c
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] A Proposed Compromise to the Block Size Limit
Precedence: list

--f46d04447e1d48340b051980d40c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Demand to participate in a low-fee global consensus network will likely
continue to rise. Technology already exists to meet that rising demand
using a blockchain with sufficient block size. Whether that blockchain is
Bitcoin Core with an increased block size, or whether it is a fork, market
forces make it almost certain that demand will be met by a blockchain with
adequate capacity. These forces ensure that not only today=E2=80=99s block =
size
will be increased, but also that future increases will occur should the
demand arise.

In order to survive, Bitcoin Core must remain the lowest-fee,
highest-capacity, most secure, distributed, fastest, overall best solution
possible to the global consensus problem. Attempting to artificially
constrain the block size below the limits of technology for any reason is a
conflict with this objective and a threat to the survival of Bitcoin Core.
At the same time, scheduling large future increases or permitting unlimited
dynamic scaling of the block size limit raises concerns over availability
of future computing resources. Instead, we should manually increase the
block size limit as demand occurs, except in the special case that
increasing the limit would cause an undue burden upon users wishing to
validate the integrity of the blockchain.

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?

--f46d04447e1d48340b051980d40c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Demand to participate in a low-fee global consensus n=
etwork will likely continue to rise. Technology already exists to meet that=
 rising demand using a blockchain with sufficient block size. Whether that =
blockchain is Bitcoin Core with an increased block size, or whether it is a=
 fork, market forces make it almost certain that demand will be met by a bl=
ockchain with adequate capacity. These forces ensure that not only today=E2=
=80=99s block size will be increased, but also that future increases will o=
ccur should the demand arise.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>In order to su=
rvive, Bitcoin Core must remain the lowest-fee, highest-capacity, most secu=
re, distributed, fastest, overall best solution possible to the global cons=
ensus problem. Attempting to artificially constrain the block size below th=
e limits of technology for any reason is a conflict with this objective and=
 a threat to the survival of Bitcoin Core. At the same time, scheduling lar=
ge future increases or permitting unlimited dynamic scaling of the block si=
ze limit raises concerns over availability of future computing resources. I=
nstead, we should manually increase the block size limit as demand occurs, =
except in the special case that increasing the limit would cause an undue b=
urden upon users wishing to validate the integrity of the blockchain.=C2=A0=
</div><div><br></div><div>Compromise: Can we agree that raising the block s=
ize to a static 8MB now with a plan to increase it further should demand ne=
cessitate except in the special case above is a reasonable path forward?</d=
iv></div>

--f46d04447e1d48340b051980d40c--