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
|
Return-Path: <elliot.olds@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A75C0415
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 31 Jul 2015 20:09:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f173.google.com (mail-io0-f173.google.com
[209.85.223.173])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4635C11B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 31 Jul 2015 20:09:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ioii16 with SMTP id i16so96091605ioi.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:09:58 -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
:content-type; bh=QGqkHYGJO4yYV7ScLnxfmk5nfCKUBRCw+tLF+nWd4AI=;
b=zMCtG7nECyQEoEh1tA7F6ng+v3NA7PDHR9i3xRU6wC8LKdjgg86OYv3izAoxH+hr1m
76myeAewHnIKHsg/MwE1EcTwiF4sHrppwbw92HOZCb5XIHU88nNqj/cUZRqaPQS0a4Cb
dbk4/o0ENmYRq9YjhUjIlwqpipN6n4wjvWoe+iw2TtXjwspAmKRFM62yHiiPIdo1bBtZ
RCOyOVAl/kPgbC/Y5ksqVHXj+dIjwyNPEPUfqBaVT0nP3BQX9zQftqoA1JCyzrBFd+su
8+WtPcNLkLb7dALYafrRALAc4uCDyuP7p/DM42JBM0l++e1LRdtAIteMszeycyRfLjDC
g0QQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.17.170 with SMTP id 42mr8395195ior.21.1438373398823;
Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.79.97.4 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+w+GKTLBWj6b4ppwrmnXb_gybYFcrX7haLBSdCnMaijy2An4w@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>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:09:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+BnGuG+3q--L-iYuCN5whkYEQgZcGgsvEdwfFLiNWg+SiQYVA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Elliot Olds <elliot.olds@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113eca7e7dcb2f051c3167e8
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
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: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 20:09:59 -0000
--001a113eca7e7dcb2f051c3167e8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> But it is easier to find common ground with others by compromising. Is 8mb
> better than no limit? I don't know and I don't care much:
>
People seeing statements like this might imagine that if you knew a change
from 1MB blocks to 1GB blocks would ensure fees were 10 cents for the next
two years instead of 30 cents over the next two years, you'd want to roll
out 1GB blocks. Would you? Where is your cutoff? How large would you be
willing to make the block size in exchange for moving fees from 30 cents to
10 cents for the next two years? How about $3 to 10 cents? $30 to 10 cents?
How do you think Greg/Pieter/Wlad/Adam/Jorge would answer those questions?
I find it very hard to guess, but I think knowing how people would make
that specific tradeoff could be helpful in either starting a more
productive discussion, or at least realizing how far apart people are in
their weighing of the risks of large blocks vs. the benefits of low fees.
Obviously the assumption that we have this two year stability period is
unrealistic, but the hypothetical tells us how much of the disagreement
comes from "if we increase the block size to lower fees, the low fees won't
last" vs. "the low fees aren't worth it even if they last."
--001a113eca7e7dcb2f051c3167e8
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 F=
ri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blan=
k">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;=
padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D=
"gmail_quote"><div>But it is easier to find common ground with others by co=
mpromising. Is 8mb better than no limit? I don't know and I don't c=
are much:=C2=A0</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div sty=
le=3D"font-size:12.8000001907349px">People seeing statements like this migh=
t imagine that if you knew a change from 1MB blocks to 1GB blocks would ens=
ure fees were 10 cents for the next two years instead of 30 cents over the =
next two years, you'd want to roll out 1GB blocks. Would you? Where is =
your cutoff? How large would you be willing to make the block size in excha=
nge for moving fees from 30 cents to 10 cents for the next two years? How a=
bout $3 to 10 cents? $30 to 10 cents?</div><div style=3D"font-size:12.80000=
01907349px"><br></div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8000001907349px">How do yo=
u think Greg/Pieter/Wlad/Adam/Jorge would answer those questions? I find it=
very hard to guess, but I think knowing how people would make that specifi=
c tradeoff could be helpful in either starting a more productive discussion=
, or at least realizing how far apart people are in their weighing of the r=
isks of large blocks vs. the benefits of low fees.</div><div style=3D"font-=
size:12.8000001907349px"><br></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8000001=
907349px">Obviously the assumption that we have this two year stability per=
iod is unrealistic, but the hypothetical tells us how much of the disagreem=
ent comes from "if we increase the block size to lower fees, the low f=
ees won't last" vs. "the low fees aren't worth it even if=
they last."</span>=C2=A0</div></div></div></div>
--001a113eca7e7dcb2f051c3167e8--
|
