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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 766FE25A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 20 Aug 2015 07:31:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-lb0-f173.google.com (mail-lb0-f173.google.com
[209.85.217.173])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0F29115
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 20 Aug 2015 07:31:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by lbbpu9 with SMTP id pu9so18229254lbb.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 20 Aug 2015 00:31:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=uTVLaKCzJEOUZhdW9QL1FqkA+Xmh25Ddh8FmmyMOQTo=;
b=JtOzT26vaRpzswtSHUNbV8XlIZQlvNL0I9MH19cnUjW5bF25hV8JXc1CPKK/cJTyKd
rX1pl8wLRmbwY5b41aBrNNF45Jjp4nKe/8t3yoRIE99TrpqV1QEMrlHbKkRhLzUGK8uC
utsWBfo8r9vs2y4dnHM4f+7y1o9YwYmnP/2v7kM9fWGbDihTSusgnTKCUirccs5TywR3
ERwpBkFRBmmQjCb+2ObDODFXVDm8vL3BgobB4l9cameFV82mgc+PDSdshLXTQLpM81jv
G+8Xr+sR29wdux63TGyL26b6wYd69ejwVj8jPd0RVVo4md2ygwRi7wqQaxudsiUnB9Fc
Ju+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk96376hpcF4YYW9/HipgCvmmPWrdJcarjjiCWgKWM4qapmPUlTkMEuWsLunAzzLjF3rd4T
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.146.106 with SMTP id tb10mr1636882lbb.22.1440055880407;
Thu, 20 Aug 2015 00:31:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 00:31:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAEieSeSw04FYCCa-Df+V6BgJo1RHqPvJWt9t=c-JCC=dnhraWA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAED3CWgTOMFgaM6bBfU0Dn-R0NrdrhGAQo34wHEneYkTtB4Opg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEieSeSw04FYCCa-Df+V6BgJo1RHqPvJWt9t=c-JCC=dnhraWA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 09:31:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDp0o5DBzuoyZ=SFvnBXTwPYFWhdOqUPkP_M_3koNMVP1g@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Chris Wardell <wardell.c@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap
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, 20 Aug 2015 07:31:22 -0000
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Chris Wardell via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I'm no authority on the subject, but I don't understand why there is a max
> block-size, other than anti-spam measures.
>
> The only other reason I have heard for a max-block-size is to force people
> into paying higher fees.
For the 73th time or so this month on this list:
The maximum block size consensus rule limits mining centralization
(which is currently pretty bad).
But don't worry about not being an authority on the subject: Gavin
(who has written extensively on the subject) doesn't seem to
understand this either.
He thinks it only limits full node centralization (by limiting how
expensive it can be to run a full node).
I thought the later would be quite obvious for everyone, but this
month I've discovered that I've been extremely optimistic about
people's understanding of the effects of the consensus rule they want
to change.
For the later reason (the one Gavin and I agree on) there's an old but
very clear video explaining it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
|
