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
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
|
Return-Path: <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA2118A8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 6 Aug 2015 16:04:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-lb0-f181.google.com (mail-lb0-f181.google.com
[209.85.217.181])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABDCB16F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 6 Aug 2015 16:03:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by lbbtg9 with SMTP id tg9so7722411lbb.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 06 Aug 2015 09:03:58 -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=GsYN5Lw/r4M0GX2IGD3y7C14KhOREDyxs6UTDxDLdX0=;
b=iP5ZZdyyYXi4k1+ro7SrGUPBwjAx3U1oyQ/Z420ycCJ7jRyjgT1hCrfJO5k3R0qC8B
6r/1sj9ACZ/ddNgAsI+eS4ZGLIQjFWXw6b8cpP1R1xNCwDd1u44nTdZvjy1B+L7SCYaW
5/eAR1ppjHhBp++d8VC5rArIewklkgjAOh2dMlrYfMoh39uT9mXwViZBigGBonnEA/Xn
giR0fGdP/f3lhAfFin55XVs3jyrWM75T1FQEhwSNvmnF0qyXrMeLM++/G8KjyW3cCYb9
JF4cZDkYOqlOAx1m3EDNyiApsUCZmwZwIh8fcFX+RkV1xAYow+2itNxQhBEnI/p72Wav
huLA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.43.41 with SMTP id t9mr2948423lal.4.1438877037848; Thu,
06 Aug 2015 09:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.143.195 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 09:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDo6bpWst-8=pr4+et+jrwNX5bt5CwSTsm5OSj1pncayjA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBj-wA1DMrwkQRWnzQoB5NR-q=2-5=WDAAUYfSpXRZSTqw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T1NqBX9Tr8vRCtCeri76e0wrtkvRhEPyG9Advv_3Uqxng@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBjwVxYTOn3+bwahHGSGpBh5BCh5b4OOFkw_2x97YZSFPQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+w+GKS_wDDgf=HjPgD5QZ_wdTRg7i_oYUgBRmh9HpufETAP=w@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDqvpWdHdjo1OBzbw-6ivu5DEGcfvK8duc3-KAjsSeWapA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+w+GKRPPcgCO0pBP2PjKGU49tWuBoF1vRJzY+4fWn71HOVDPw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDqV1NdHJZBmUWX3AxVYy6ErU7AB-wsWgGzbiTL1twdq6g@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+w+GKTLBWj6b4ppwrmnXb_gybYFcrX7haLBSdCnMaijy2An4w@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDpWPhYNh=g-ZXCsfe-aPq=N6NKSWKP9kr-KtPVrWAxB7Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAO2FKHsczkwwqO87cJFtxBp9JE=vf=GcxLx37GpRUkPq8VGHQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDpp5+hkHmd6op6PPW658siKoEMRDfTWiEHHM7vJSLDhyA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+BnGuFNOjzLaiPPnUSi-rkU94UMgmP30Si8N3oBSYG0q8j-_w@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDoNbhc1=kgc0F+wSm33hTmRmmptk-XcaZxsm=6iJkWu=w@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T22KUcbRb4ZfRDikbxK05pqWY1=uvYo10toWA-JwGa-PQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDo6bpWst-8=pr4+et+jrwNX5bt5CwSTsm5OSj1pncayjA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 12:03:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T3ARTAV58LYSr40VJsttO5kAtLxMDMZwkKH+ztXYw13mg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c27f40b77067051ca6aa9c
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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 <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: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 16:04:00 -0000
--001a11c27f40b77067051ca6aa9c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:
> 1) If "not now" when will it be a good time to let fees rise above zero?
>
Fees are already above zero. See
http://gavinandresen.ninja/the-myth-of-not-full-blocks
> 2) When will you consider a size to be too dangerous for centralization?
> In other words, why 20 GB would have been safe but 21 GB wouldn't have
> been (or the respective maximums and respective +1 for each block
> increase proposal)?
>
http://gavinandresen.ninja/does-more-transactions-necessarily-mean-more-cen=
tralized
3) Does this mean that you would be in favor of completely removing
> the consensus rule that limits mining centralization by imposing an
> artificial (like any other consensus rule) block size maximum?
>
I don't believe that the maximum block size has much at all to do with
mining centralization, so I don't accept the premise of the question.
--=20
--
Gavin Andresen
--001a11c27f40b77067051ca6aa9c
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, Aug 6, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:jtimon@jtimon.cc" target=3D"_blank">jtimon@jtimon.cc</a>></sp=
an> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div id=3D":4eb" class=3D"a3s"=
style=3D"overflow:hidden">1) If "not now" when will it be a good=
time to let fees rise above zero?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><di=
v>Fees are already above zero. See=C2=A0<a href=3D"http://gavinandresen.nin=
ja/the-myth-of-not-full-blocks">http://gavinandresen.ninja/the-myth-of-not-=
full-blocks</a></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty=
le=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div i=
d=3D":4eb" class=3D"a3s" style=3D"overflow:hidden">
2) When will you consider a size to be too dangerous for centralization?<br=
>
In other words, why 20 GB would have been safe but 21 GB wouldn't have<=
br>
been (or the respective maximums and respective +1 for each block<br>
increase proposal)?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><a href=3D"ht=
tp://gavinandresen.ninja/does-more-transactions-necessarily-mean-more-centr=
alized">http://gavinandresen.ninja/does-more-transactions-necessarily-mean-=
more-centralized</a><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"=
><div id=3D":4eb" class=3D"a3s" style=3D"overflow:hidden">3) Does this mean=
that you would be in favor of completely removing<br>
the consensus rule that limits mining centralization by imposing an<br>
artificial (like any other consensus rule) block size maximum?<br></div></b=
lockquote></div><br>I don't believe that the maximum block size has muc=
h at all to do with mining centralization, so I don't accept the premis=
e of the question.<br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class=3D"gma=
il_signature">--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></div>
</div></div>
--001a11c27f40b77067051ca6aa9c--
|
