Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B1508EB for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 18:35:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-la0-f47.google.com (mail-la0-f47.google.com [209.85.215.47]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CA64246 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 18:35:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lagz9 with SMTP id z9so26795170lag.3 for ; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 11:35:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=qUreCvT2gPGm898o25rkjrj2592iqHTXUzVNBvDwLqo=; b=Ap9z/BUHzGVVdl1hV2iMlXMHIRX+bsiOZutgyLsnlVcm7fYKWlpf//fzqAoT4uszbP BYa7pdv218468/tQ3luxyhy0GDlcMALZ9TmENRrgLLXTrmUejJ+NFwwf/m4bqXwaOaQH OGre6aAWh442U8Iy1a01mpWJhVMCNygA453R7Ru5KqSh2z+TTswTyxtFAtSQN4yMP7Nc mQS9nz1bf2+j8fnoRLL2gBD6Eb7I/4i66KaRnomfmw9h2UawgyXPJtsU+n9lhzMvEHEo B9Mp6Av7SvkRKweLyGn3nCoChLSfXkFoVfd9iGLUHAr24dETKaTjHmK5pIHgCgFznCiv mUWg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.130.7 with SMTP id oa7mr8624893lbb.30.1438972529723; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 11:35:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.18.166 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 11:35:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6786132febd22f90c4107285920d76ca@xbt.hk> References: <6786132febd22f90c4107285920d76ca@xbt.hk> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 13:35:29 -0500 Message-ID: From: Bryan Bishop To: jl2012@xbt.hk, Bryan Bishop Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a8b0079d190051cbce6a8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process 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: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 18:35:32 -0000 --047d7b3a8b0079d190051cbce6a8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:17 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > No, I'm not trolling. I really want someone to tell me why we > should/shouldn't reduce the block size. Are we going to have more or less > full nodes if we reduce the block size? Some arguments have floated around that even in the absence of "causing an increase in the number of full nodes", that a reduction of the max block size might be beneficial for other reasons, such as bandwidth saturation benefits. Also less time spent validating transactions because of the fewer transactions. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 --047d7b3a8b0079d190051cbce6a8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On F= ri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:17 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <bi= tcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
No, I'm not trolling. I really want someone to tell me= why we should/shouldn't reduce the block size. Are we going to have mo= re or less full nodes if we reduce the block size?

So= me arguments have floated around that even in the absence of "causing = an increase in the number of full nodes", that a reduction of the max = block size might be beneficial for other reasons, such as bandwidth saturat= ion benefits. Also less time spent validating transactions because of the f= ewer transactions.=C2=A0

-= Bryan
http://heybrya= n.org/
1 512 203 0507
--047d7b3a8b0079d190051cbce6a8--