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
143
144
145
146
147
|
Return-Path: <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8219E8F4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 6 Aug 2015 20:01:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f169.google.com (mail-io0-f169.google.com
[209.85.223.169])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF14F166
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 6 Aug 2015 20:01:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ioeg141 with SMTP id g141so92231633ioe.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 06 Aug 2015 13:01:54 -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=sIS5j2cCMoFv31hjI570oPyllwFOg506+WmXrWqX0bI=;
b=sV2877gG2ubYvN7KPoo6ZiSyESNAtE1LSTzbY4AHf1uDrn+v5njnoszitTDpQ+RFKA
Mp8ONQij3x8uRSeB54d+oJWy2jtkvACUhtWdgcVQTZ7wpn5VFb7jXDciSYOkvs1IngeN
nJ3mr/wyRugjtxMrLjDAPdGgr4HiLntXd3j8ywSl+jQcCqWfgPbsm+0Gg56hRtMiFuf5
5ZaE3yP/6TBOepQU9990yrmi8qYX4jDf1yZjRPaDf+I+2y3zdG2RSWBEtEX5pW5H3LE3
W56+aRDI+BDh0Fdnbt9imf4r4RfyWpVA/1WS2jBlhs/ygTIzjrSH3Zer9qBVPUfze7E5
DKMQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.9.137 with SMTP id 9mr4492509ioj.50.1438891314176; Thu,
06 Aug 2015 13:01:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.77.201 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 13:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.77.201 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 13:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T3KH_pbUc+Yu4wRmWHcF1e6fEtPzLzZddwDrQBMzoZPVg@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>
<CABsx9T3ARTAV58LYSr40VJsttO5kAtLxMDMZwkKH+ztXYw13mg@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDok2WuYhGtqqvaJPez4i8Y8E4MXcCrg81ewK2j=grd45A@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T3KH_pbUc+Yu4wRmWHcF1e6fEtPzLzZddwDrQBMzoZPVg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 22:01:53 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBhSBGzcBGaVfGAK0mmKRx7-HZ2cJtgvQTs6fG0Djv+NmQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f8f14a6ebb8051ca9fd6f
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 20:01:55 -0000
--001a113f8f14a6ebb8051ca9fd6f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Aug 6, 2015 9:42 PM, "Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
2. The "market minimum fee" should be determined by the market. It should
not be up to us to decide "when is a good time."
I partially agree. The community should decide what risks it is willing to
take, and set limits accordingly. Let the market decide how that space is
best used.
>
>>
>> Would you agree that blocksize increase proposals should have such a
>> criterion/test?
>
>
> Although I've been very clear with my criterion, no, I don't think all
blocksize increase proposals should have to justify "why this size" or "why
this rate of increase." Part of my frustration with this whole debate is
we're talking about a sanity-check upper-limit; as long as it doesn't open
up some terrible new DoS possibility I don't think it really matters much
what the exact number is.
It is only a DoS protection limit if you want to rely on trusting miners. I
prefer a system where I don't have to do that.
But I agree the numbers don't matter much, for a different reason: the
market will fill up whatever space is available, and we'll have the same
discussion when the new limit doesn't seem enough anymore.
--
Pieter
--001a113f8f14a6ebb8051ca9fd6f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On Aug 6, 2015 9:42 PM, "Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev" <<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linu=
xfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
2. The "market minimum fee" should be determined by the market. I=
t should not be up to us to decide "when is a good time."</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I partially agree. The community should decide what risks it=
is willing to take, and set limits accordingly. Let the market decide how =
that space is best used.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">> =C2=A0<br>
>><br>
>> Would you agree that blocksize increase proposals should have such=
a<br>
>> criterion/test?<br>
><br>
><br>
> Although I've been very clear with my criterion, no, I don't t=
hink all blocksize increase proposals should have to justify "why this=
size" or "why this rate of increase." Part of my frustratio=
n with this whole debate is we're talking about a sanity-check upper-li=
mit; as long as it doesn't open up some terrible new DoS possibility I =
don't think it really matters much what the exact number is.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">It is only a DoS protection limit if you want to rely on tru=
sting miners. I prefer a system where I don't have to do that.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">But I agree the numbers don't matter much, for a differe=
nt reason: the market will fill up whatever space is available, and we'=
ll have the same discussion when the new limit doesn't seem enough anym=
ore.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">-- <br>
Pieter<br>
</p>
--001a113f8f14a6ebb8051ca9fd6f--
|
