Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4E3C8CE for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 16:19:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f52.google.com (mail-pa0-f52.google.com [209.85.220.52]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 538321FB for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 16:19:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pabyb7 with SMTP id yb7so34036372pab.0 for ; Thu, 06 Aug 2015 09:19:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=f4X/TD8watkzktENRP7S8AlGcn9g46PuAd97a1U4/wA=; b=QFJKMTJI9mVKb70GZL6Irysh4cZmhdgKBZlCDzZb15rvLRDFOD+fjYQSK3+sTjrzu3 MbULVTumQ/wVCocnuDRZnnH0RJQWTCH73GZ/dqHpH0bzIag0xldX+/TopCZZB2OoYtI6 4xIUXl4o2r7uLr4w6Ez/YJ6KF5WKKg6u37KBp93kaft+v7ySqooeceYiCQfcP/ZrXX6i UaEhFIolXP4uW2DjVHK/uR2VOJXlYZlhHoyj0/ozVs0gkkF9U9XJIEguXbgUUoc/Vq74 qfqYpuUG2M/cix+OTpag1uoZALt9Cd0gvxwohYYIoqqT2+ZX8lnzL5LWXZvkdmMjfBUf SMJg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlgQA/uvi5+L+fCr4+kdH+PFKR46ZoXrF1FNq4TMy+42Pguf8Qkax+3oMYWsPs8coCnocTQ X-Received: by 10.68.252.225 with SMTP id zv1mr4798887pbc.45.1438877956039; Thu, 06 Aug 2015 09:19:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net. [99.8.65.117]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id fj6sm7076908pdb.21.2015.08.06.09.19.13 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Aug 2015 09:19:14 -0700 (PDT) To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: From: Tom Harding X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <55C38901.8090608@thinlink.com> Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 09:19:13 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 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, 06 Aug 2015 16:19:16 -0000 On 8/6/2015 7:53 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > So if we would have 8 MB blocks, and there is a sudden influx of users > (or settlement systems, who serve much more users) who want to pay > high fees (let's say 20 transactions per second) making the block > chain inaccessible for low fee transactions, and unreliable for medium > fee transactions (for any value of low, medium, and high), would you > be ok with that? Gavin has answered this question in the clearest way possible -- in tested C++ code, which increases capacity only on a precise schedule for 20 years, then stops increasing.