1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
|
Return-Path: <simon@bitcartel.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E728C8EC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Aug 2015 18:36:11 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com
[209.85.212.174])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E95F244
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Aug 2015 18:36:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so76422125wib.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 07 Aug 2015 11:36:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=DbFf+z45KhIwlV+ZHcKMjb7wBO/LyVAvaMmqLwCAJiU=;
b=ODKYpP+kGPfma+Ldy8aC1gfIEG+f3eICkaD/ydQ6/8TTTkoaF0VnpRWIViUNc2ZFvJ
2HIdemeFwqkLjdawtpGv9podYJc2WXI3MYZG1lzS1axaVKRa/TwQ9tGoSuBxJ0vvRtxQ
3yM9yrla3qYn2Z5V4R3IdcTIEmdwJSmu8YNulrcuJm137tOVE5giTOHAr5dTdQ4Zjmfe
DvWFyCGrrT+jXJMHVFNMnd7WdEHG2klLXmIyvegVKqpVviHgAMuWBfjqDRGp/gPqur/v
0PFq8E6lyRkJMl+vL+FkBU9DzUHnUt3JdAZ1wRDt5cvlIb7LN6ZfZ8Q8DD9MVl/Ob0/z
abhw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlmABBAok5qx5gPX1Y/oAJob+BZ6Ws24BuzjR9l6xUS4B/KLbKO615aH5g2OCMKTphDZ/q/
X-Received: by 10.180.21.244 with SMTP id y20mr9730951wie.65.1438972569889;
Fri, 07 Aug 2015 11:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.10.40.141] (ns346200.ip-5-196-80.eu. [5.196.80.160])
by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
pg9sm15807213wjb.40.2015.08.07.11.36.02
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Fri, 07 Aug 2015 11:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <55C4FA91.5090009@bitcartel.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 11:36:01 -0700
From: Simon Liu <simon@bitcartel.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: jl2012@xbt.hk, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T16fH+56isq95m4+QWsKwP==tf75ep8ghnEcBoV4OtZJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPg+sBgOt=qhQVZv5P-4mcD75=L4PKgOfRqhyB6FZdSYQajrwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABsx9T10y6-=c7Qg6jysnf38wRX3NA3wWozxGfE+mEYJvPeqWA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPg+sBiaT-2sjedA1mLOQo+q7=DjJ2yRuy7E4Gb3Wn8R-DzRTQ@mail.gmail.com>
<6786132febd22f90c4107285920d76ca@xbt.hk>
In-Reply-To: <6786132febd22f90c4107285920d76ca@xbt.hk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
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
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 18:36:12 -0000
That's a good question.
An argument has been put forward that a larger block size would reduce
the security of the network, so does the converse hold?
On 08/07/2015 11:17 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> What if we reduce the block size to 0.125MB? That will allow 0.375tx/s.
> If 3->24 sounds "almost the same", 3->0.375 also sounds almost the same.
> We will have 50000 full nodes, instead of 5000, since it is so
> affordable to run a full node.
>
> If 0.125MB sounds too extreme, what about 0.5/0.7/0.9MB? Are we going to
> have more full nodes?
>
> 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?
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
