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
|
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 489AF8A5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Aug 2015 17:33:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com (mail-wi0-f173.google.com
[209.85.212.173])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8A071F0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Aug 2015 17:33:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so74563120wib.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 07 Aug 2015 10:33:35 -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=ydjOwcKQw0kOimMXM7ZoO3rE6ReEhZcl/p/4+0NGfUQ=;
b=d2/UeRveNhGeIaAlwnXIG3D/z2M6g5FQgxcv4GN/IKfaEe2qDR91R45+CeswCft38+
g+A6oXVnVM2ecDjC43Humu5Hnw3DFMA5XYQECzE4iqhWCQlh8JBrXbKjNFJFfMjBPJcC
8gbn85Q9wDNOeKMYs2qW68/greYhLM7PZgkpN5yr6Z3iNbgfL2gU1MeC98q/CoLM133m
/po8fW6LDDZ3Bgg3cZ8mcZHaEQR05UNBUTHy+FpP0zwxxptkB5+FsL1St01wrgZaeJrm
EX2UH5gz9xrBoJLws8nP835NRkONEWcrgNrVgdBjhgIRaA6GKErPRcr4pjbM0r+Lg/Gl
m1Eg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmKNuVp/Vdaom+jgHoVNu1gtbN8E4I8XugNoQUBR8NjX5iTd2c72GEkkmR2lefHT2oPCPgv
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.109.106 with SMTP id hr10mr8774409wib.58.1438968815112;
Fri, 07 Aug 2015 10:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 10:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 10:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T10y6-=c7Qg6jysnf38wRX3NA3wWozxGfE+mEYJvPeqWA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T16fH+56isq95m4+QWsKwP==tf75ep8ghnEcBoV4OtZJA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBgOt=qhQVZv5P-4mcD75=L4PKgOfRqhyB6FZdSYQajrwQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T10y6-=c7Qg6jysnf38wRX3NA3wWozxGfE+mEYJvPeqWA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 19:33:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDpwMQzju+Gsoe3qMi60MPr7OAiSuigy3RdA1xh-SwFzbw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d1c7e1169b8051cbc099c
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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] 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 17:33:37 -0000
--089e013d1c7e1169b8051cbc099c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Aug 7, 2015 5:55 PM, "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, and
yes, fear of Bad Things Happening as we run up against the 1MB limit is one
of the reasons.
What are the other reasons?
> I take the opinion of smart engineers who actually do resource planning
and have seen what happens when networks run out of capacity very seriously.
When "the network runs out of capacity" (when we hit the limit) do we
expect anything to happen apart from minimum market fees rising (above
zero)?
Obviously any consequences of fees rising are included in this concern.
--089e013d1c7e1169b8051cbc099c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
<p dir="ltr"><br>
On Aug 7, 2015 5:55 PM, "Gavin Andresen" <<a href="mailto:gavinandresen@gmail.com">gavinandresen@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, and yes, fear of Bad Things Happening as we run up against the 1MB limit is one of the reasons.</p>
<p dir="ltr">What are the other reasons?</p>
<p dir="ltr">> I take the opinion of smart engineers who actually do resource planning and have seen what happens when networks run out of capacity very seriously.</p>
<p dir="ltr">When "the network runs out of capacity" (when we hit the limit) do we expect anything to happen apart from minimum market fees rising (above zero)?<br>
Obviously any consequences of fees rising are included in this concern.</p>
--089e013d1c7e1169b8051cbc099c--
|
