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
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <steven.pine@gmail.com>) id 1Yy2Ud-0000r5-QA
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 28 May 2015 18:25:23 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.216.48 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.216.48; envelope-from=steven.pine@gmail.com;
helo=mail-vn0-f48.google.com;
Received: from mail-vn0-f48.google.com ([209.85.216.48])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Yy2Uc-0002VM-Kx
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 28 May 2015 18:25:23 +0000
Received: by vnbf7 with SMTP id f7so5665216vnb.13
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 28 May 2015 11:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.233.166 with SMTP id tx6mr3497069vdc.91.1432837517183;
Thu, 28 May 2015 11:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.26.80 with HTTP; Thu, 28 May 2015 11:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.26.80 with HTTP; Thu, 28 May 2015 11:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T03aNRC5DRbR06nNtsiBdJAcQsGAHvbCOe3pnuRpdvq5w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAjy6kDdB8uODpPcmS8h4eap8fke7Y2y773NHJZja8tB5mPk4Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAjy6kAsNJNJHHU7H91LsAOJZUjiuy3V3r1n-wqntUhCHdgYKw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T03aNRC5DRbR06nNtsiBdJAcQsGAHvbCOe3pnuRpdvq5w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 14:25:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAjy6kBRJ6n_hE1EsDaGFDopw=TgTYsBqRK1jiaWaoBfvzk6YQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Steven Pine <steven.pine@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net, gavinandresen@gmail.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011601d23b922b0517287be6
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(steven.pine[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Yy2Uc-0002VM-Kx
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step
function
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 18:25:23 -0000
--089e011601d23b922b0517287be6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
My understanding, which is very likely wrong in one way or another, is
transaction size and block size are two slightly different things but
perhaps it's so negligible that block size is a fine stand-in for total
transaction throughput.
Potentially Doubling the block size everyday is frankly imprudent. The
logarithmic increases in difficulty, which were often closer to 10% or 20%
every 2016 blocks was and is plenty fast, potentially changing blocksize by
twice daily is the mentality I would expect from a startup with the move
fast break things motto.
Infrastructure takes time, not everyone wants to run a node on a virtual
amazon instance, provisioning additional hard drive and bandwidth can't
happen overnight and trying to plan when block size from one week to the
next is a total mystery would be extremely difficult.
Anyone who has spent time examining the mining difficulty increases and
trajectory knows future planning is very very hard, allowing block size to
double daily would make it impossible.
Perhaps a middle way would be 300% increase every 2016 blocks, that will
scale to 20mbs within a month or two
The problem is logarithmic increases seem slow until they seem fast. If the
network begins to grow and block size hits 20, then the next day 40, 80...
Small nodes could get swamped within a week or less.
As for your point about Christmas, Bitcoin is a global network, Christmas,
while widely celebrated, isn't the only holiday, and planning around
American buying habits seems short sighted and no different from developers
trying to choose what the right fee pressure is.
On May 28, 2015 1:22 PM, "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Steven Pine <steven.pine@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> I would support a dynamic block size increase as outlined. I have a few
questions though.
>>
>> Is scaling by average block size the best and easiest method, why not
scale by transactions confirmed instead? Anyone can write and relay a
transaction, and those are what we want to scale for, why not measure it
directly?
>
>
> What do you mean? Transactions aren't confirmed until they're in a
block...
>
>>
>> I would prefer changes every 2016 blocks, it is a well known change and
a reasonable time period for planning on changes. Two weeks is plenty fast,
especially at a 50% rate increase, in a few months the block size could be
dramatically larger.
>
>
> What type of planning do you imagine is necessary?
>
> And have you looked at transaction volumes for credit-card payment
networks around Christmas?
>
>>
>> Daily change to size seems confusing especially considering that max
block size will be dipping up and down. Also if something breaks trying to
fix it in a day seems problematic. The hard fork database size difference
error comes to mind. Finally daily 50% increases could quickly crowd out
smaller nodes if changes happen too quickly to adapt for.
>
> The bottleneck is transaction volume; blocks won't get bigger unless
there are fee-paying transactions around to pay them. What scenario are you
imagining where transaction volume increases by 50% a day for a sustained
period of time?
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
--089e011601d23b922b0517287be6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr">My understanding, which is very likely wrong in one way or a=
nother, is transaction size and block size are two slightly different thing=
s but perhaps it's so negligible that block size is a fine stand-in for=
total transaction throughput.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Potentially Doubling the block size everyday is frankly impr=
udent. The logarithmic increases in difficulty, which were often closer to =
10% or 20% every 2016 blocks was and is plenty fast, potentially changing b=
locksize by twice daily is the mentality I would expect from a startup with=
the move fast break things motto.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Infrastructure takes time, not everyone wants to run a node =
on a virtual amazon instance, provisioning additional hard drive and bandwi=
dth can't happen overnight and trying to plan when block size from one =
week to the next is a total mystery would be extremely difficult.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Anyone who has spent time examining the mining difficulty in=
creases and trajectory knows future planning is very very hard, allowing bl=
ock size to double daily would make it impossible.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Perhaps a middle way would be 300%=C2=A0 increase every 2016=
blocks, that will scale to 20mbs within a=C2=A0 month or two</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">The problem is logarithmic increases seem slow until they se=
em fast. If the network begins to grow and block size hits 20, then the nex=
t day 40, 80... Small nodes could get swamped within a week or less. </p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">As for your point about Christmas, Bitcoin is a global netwo=
rk, Christmas, while widely celebrated, isn't the only holiday, and pla=
nning around American buying habits seems short sighted and no different fr=
om developers trying to choose what the right fee pressure is.<br></p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">On May 28, 2015 1:22 PM, "Gavin Andresen" <<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:gavinandresen@gmail.com">gavinandresen@gmail.com</a>> wrot=
e:<br>
><br>
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Steven Pine <<a href=3D"mailto:st=
even.pine@gmail.com">steven.pine@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> I would support a dynamic block size increase as outlined. I have =
a few questions though.<br>
>><br>
>> Is scaling by average block size the best and easiest method, why =
not scale by transactions confirmed instead? Anyone can write and relay a t=
ransaction, and those are what we want to scale for, why not measure it dir=
ectly?<br>
><br>
><br>
> What do you mean? Transactions aren't confirmed until they're =
in a block...<br>
> =C2=A0<br>
>><br>
>> I would prefer changes every 2016 blocks, it is a well known chang=
e and a reasonable time period for planning on changes. Two weeks is plenty=
fast, especially at a 50% rate increase, in a few months the block size co=
uld be dramatically larger.<br>
><br>
><br>
> What type of planning do you imagine is necessary?<br>
><br>
> And have you looked at transaction volumes for credit-card payment net=
works around Christmas?<br>
> =C2=A0<br>
>><br>
>> Daily change to size seems confusing especially considering that m=
ax block size will be dipping up and down. Also if something breaks trying =
to fix it in a day seems problematic. The hard fork database size differenc=
e error comes to mind. Finally daily 50% increases could quickly crowd out =
smaller nodes if changes happen too quickly to adapt for.<br>
><br>
> The bottleneck is transaction volume; blocks won't get bigger unle=
ss there are fee-paying transactions around to pay them. What scenario are =
you imagining where transaction volume increases by 50% a day for a sustain=
ed period of time?<br>
><br>
> -- <br>
> --<br>
> Gavin Andresen<br>
</p>
--089e011601d23b922b0517287be6--
|
