Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.217.180 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.217.180; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-lb0-f180.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFzgq-x+-s_Nbt4z-C4SWQbHdPr159AmL2JvpP0zg1axM+Vwcw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <554BE0E1.5030001@bluematt.me>
	<CAFzgq-xByQ1E_33_m3UpXQFUkGc78HKnA=7XXMshANDuTkNsvA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T0kbRe31LMwk499MQUw225f5GGd67GfhXBezHmDqxkioA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFzgq-z5WCznGhbOexS0XESNGAVauw45ewEV-1eMij7yDT61=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFzgq-zTybEQyGz0nq90u5n5JZcJzxQS_XKaTpr5POJi-tHM6A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T2L5bi-c63-KqSifOMeNayUWSPo0_Hx8VjMR_4=kC3ixg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE28kUT61qYxqV0mOqw5Dan=eMiCvnG2SnsAeWzOWTxwLydyeQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T2hfpts5y_M6PdDcxmq9Q2smesJ0Nmp9a9iyPD_MoPC9g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE28kUTZV3YsaSCX2d5YwLetnf=f+bOWGrwxLXdZFywTZ=+Pjg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALC81CNq-GK5q6R4bmgHL5_Ej2+cZrtQMMLVmuhvMxkZokM3hQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE28kUQr+kUPak67tcNQGGscUXtJiD1LiXfjdD8_LMUWyVdR5w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP12WAcUOJp5UYg4pfWL7_4WiAHWWZAoaxAb5xB+qAP4Xg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFzgq-ykeMeWF-ndgSm9upHTe8j6ZFYhBQjFs_WSz1oVd29j7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFzgq-x+-s_Nbt4z-C4SWQbHdPr159AmL2JvpP0zg1axM+Vwcw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 09:59:31 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T2aEvPs68pQA-KrtaDQFcTTtiB36eqKAcJRkiOFQr6WsA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c382d0339c6e0517753c95
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements
Precedence: list

--001a11c382d0339c6e0517753c95
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com> wrote:

> I cannot believe why Gavin (who seems to have difficulty to spell my
> name correctly.) insists on his 20MB proposal regardless the
> community. BIP66 has been introduced for a long time and no one knows
> when the 95% goal can be met. This change to the block max size must
> take one year or more to be adopted. We should increase the limit and
> increase it now. 20MB is simply too big and too risky, sometimes we
> need compromise and push things forward. I agree with any solution
> lower than 10MB in its first two years.
>
>
Thanks, that's useful!

What do other people think?  Would starting at a max of 8 or 4 get
consensus?  Scaling up a little less than Nielsen's Law of Internet
Bandwidth predicts for the next 20 years?  (I think predictability is
REALLY important).

I chose 20 because all of my testing shows it to be safe, and all of my
back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate the costs are reasonable.

If consensus is "8 because more than order-of-magnitude increases are
scary" -- ok.

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen

--001a11c382d0339c6e0517753c95
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 M=
on, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Chun Wang <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mail=
to:1240902@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">1240902@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wr=
ote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border=
-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I cannot believe why Gavin (who seem=
s to have difficulty to spell my<br>
name correctly.) insists on his 20MB proposal regardless the<br>
community. BIP66 has been introduced for a long time and no one knows<br>
when the 95% goal can be met. This change to the block max size must<br>
take one year or more to be adopted. We should increase the limit and<br>
increase it now. 20MB is simply too big and too risky, sometimes we<br>
need compromise and push things forward. I agree with any solution<br>
lower than 10MB in its first two years.<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div>=
<div>Thanks, that&#39;s useful!</div><div><br></div><div>What do other peop=
le think?=C2=A0 Would starting at a max of 8 or 4 get consensus?=C2=A0 Scal=
ing up a little less than Nielsen&#39;s Law of Internet Bandwidth predicts =
for the next 20 years? =C2=A0(I think predictability is REALLY important).<=
/div><div><br></div><div>I chose 20 because all of my testing shows it to b=
e safe, and all of my back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate the costs =
are reasonable.</div><div><br></div><div>If consensus is &quot;8 because mo=
re than order-of-magnitude increases are scary&quot; -- ok.</div></div><div=
><br></div>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_signature">--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></=
div>
</div></div>

--001a11c382d0339c6e0517753c95--