Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.217.172 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.217.172; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-lb0-f172.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBhuHrMHZym8xQ2-dMknR4zdM=ZULcnZ-fcGnKLserDd-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator>
	<CABsx9T3-zxCAagAS0megd06xvG5n-3tUL9NUK9TT3vt7XNL9Tg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP3VCaFsW4+gPm2kCJ9z7oVUZYVaeNf=_cJWEWwh4ZxiPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T21zjHyO-nh1aSBM3z4Bg015O0rOfYq7=Sy4mf=QxUVQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<COL131-DS24FC87C7C6622E23F5EF58CDCA0@phx.gbl>
	<CAPg+sBhuHrMHZym8xQ2-dMknR4zdM=ZULcnZ-fcGnKLserDd-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 14:21:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T06sk8srz016tfgxcYrn9Ebc33Oj95tK7i4D1i0=+p9rA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01494248d5e6f10517286ed3
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB
	stepfunction
Precedence: list

--089e01494248d5e6f10517286ed3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I personally think the block size should increase, by the way, but only if
> we can do it under a policy of doing it after technological growth has been
> shown to be sufficient to support it without increased risk.
>
> Can you be more specific about this? What risks are you worried about?

I've tried to cover all that I've heard about in my blog posts about why I
think the risks of 20MB blocks are outweighed by the benefits, am I missing
something?
  (blog posts are linked from
http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks )

There is the "a sudden jump to a 20MB max might have unforseen
consequences" risk that I don't address, but a dynamic increase would fix
that.

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen

--089e01494248d5e6f10517286ed3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T=
hu, May 28, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Pieter Wuille <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">pieter.wuille@gmail.com<=
/a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);=
border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D""><p dir=3D"ltr">I=
 personally think the block size should increase, by the way, but only if w=
e can do it under a policy of doing it after technological growth has been =
shown to be sufficient to support it without increased risk.<br></p></span>=
<span class=3D""><font color=3D"#888888">
<p dir=3D"ltr"></p></font></span></blockquote></div><div class=3D"gmail_ext=
ra">Can you be more specific about this? What risks are you worried about?<=
/div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">I&#39;=
ve tried to cover all that I&#39;ve heard about in my blog posts about why =
I think the risks of 20MB blocks are outweighed by the benefits, am I missi=
ng something?</div><div>=C2=A0 (blog posts are linked from=C2=A0<a href=3D"=
http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks">http://gavinandr=
esen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks</a> )</div><div><br></div><div>Th=
ere is the &quot;a sudden jump to a 20MB max might have unforseen consequen=
ces&quot; risk that I don&#39;t address, but a dynamic increase would fix t=
hat.</div><div><br></div>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_signature">--<br>Gavin =
Andresen<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_signature"><br></div>
</div></div>

--089e01494248d5e6f10517286ed3--