MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T1NqBX9Tr8vRCtCeri76e0wrtkvRhEPyG9Advv_3Uqxng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBj-wA1DMrwkQRWnzQoB5NR-q=2-5=WDAAUYfSpXRZSTqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T1NqBX9Tr8vRCtCeri76e0wrtkvRhEPyG9Advv_3Uqxng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:41:55 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFp6fsExyinUm8uUiOY_xEDkYKcq09XZU3uy+YAcCyTEdeE6rA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Suhas Daftuar <sdaftuar@gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113e38509b5b62051c1a6139
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size following technological growth
Precedence: list

--001a113e38509b5b62051c1a6139
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> So we'd get to 2MB blocks in the year 2021. I think that is much too
> conservative, and the most likely effect of being that conservative is that
> the main blockchain becomes a settlement network, affordable only for
> large-value transactions.
>

While that may be true I think that's okay -- if it turns out that this is
too conservative, and we succeed in scaling the system so that it's
non-controversial to increase these limits later via another hard fork, we
would still be free to do so.

It seems to me that everyone who has been arguing recently to increase the
block size limit ought to find this proposal to be a strict improvement
over where we are now, and this proposal seems like it's reasonably likely
to be non-controversial enough to be worth proposing as a hard fork in
Bitcoin Core -- thank you Pieter for putting this together.

For my part, I'd give this a concept ACK, pending hearing further thoughts
from others.

Suhas Daftuar

--001a113e38509b5b62051c1a6139
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, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"l=
tr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"=
_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div=
 class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>So we&#39;d get to 2MB blocks in the year 2021.=
 I think that is much too conservative, and the most likely effect of being=
 that conservative is that the main blockchain becomes a settlement network=
, affordable only for large-value transactions.</div></div></div></div></bl=
ockquote><div><br></div><div>While that may be true I think that&#39;s okay=
 -- if it turns out that this is too conservative, and we succeed in scalin=
g the system so that it&#39;s non-controversial to increase these limits la=
ter via another hard fork, we would still be free to do so.</div><div><br><=
/div><div>It seems to me that everyone who has been arguing recently to inc=
rease the block size limit ought to find this proposal to be a strict impro=
vement over where we are now, and this proposal seems like it&#39;s reasona=
bly likely to be non-controversial enough to be worth proposing as a hard f=
ork in Bitcoin Core -- thank you Pieter for putting this together.</div><di=
v><br></div><div>For my part, I&#39;d give this a concept ACK, pending hear=
ing further thoughts from others.</div><div><br></div><div>Suhas Daftuar</d=
iv></div></div></div>

--001a113e38509b5b62051c1a6139--