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
|
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 6FC8D83D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 4 Aug 2015 11:59:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com
[209.85.212.177])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D70CC89
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 4 Aug 2015 11:59:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wibud3 with SMTP id ud3so173723612wib.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 04 Aug 2015 04:59:57 -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=MgK/DtJTsqVAet98EJvk2N9WDpk/21JAz0YldoE4tiA=;
b=O2SjDOCLaCs25E0es3KDIXDo4+2QAmYSh1jMMipKhDhYjYDtUnAy2Z2Xp28c98Ie+k
/CMp7vYAVHi9QCv0w3jEsO8oyKv4eTht8N5SIZ0Iivt4xfzdI5oFvkYJoy7eGaEvEkqh
PsoNJhNfoT1U4/n+ZUdcDOPGL46b0ORFzbnK82z3IuNzFoEyugy5jvxyNRYULDtzk2FM
CuspiWXPJAiqWAPurOEkdypavTrKI+kDHM++3dnyqvLCLrl9doOb2X0wyFcP6IanZJS7
1JqGbolWPNEG13N2W0Ii8LYE0abStrG5i9oAxLBy2d2qzqgbAfPUbYpC8kwn6kWRECxv
822g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmsP7B1qXWayZL6uZDQ8646Y/ezjrJHyXlxeHtlTgHDAdn/klPZEDSGohDRUHhU2KkWOgkU
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.186.35 with SMTP id fh3mr44832949wic.7.1438689597333;
Tue, 04 Aug 2015 04:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 04:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAO2FKHsczkwwqO87cJFtxBp9JE=vf=GcxLx37GpRUkPq8VGHQ@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>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:59:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDpp5+hkHmd6op6PPW658siKoEMRDfTWiEHHM7vJSLDhyA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Hector Chu <hectorchu@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] 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: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 11:59:59 -0000
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Hector Chu <hectorchu@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike's position is that he wants the block size limit to eventually be
> removed. That is of course an extreme view.
I prefer to wait and let him talk by himself.
> Meanwhile, your view that the
> block size should be artificially constrained below the organic growth curve
> (in a way that will penalize a majority of existing and future users) lies
> at the other extreme.
That is not my position. Again, I don't know what the right blocksize
for the short term is (I don't think anybody does).
But I know that the maximum block size limit consensus rule (no more
artificial than any other consensus rule, like, say, the one that
prohibits double-spends) serves to limit mining centralization.
Therefore how the change can affect mining centralization must be the
main concern, instead of (also artificial) projections about usage
growth (no matter how organic their curves look).
Also I don't think "hitting the limit" must be necessarily harmful and
if it is, I don't understand why hitting it at 1MB will be more
harmful than hitting it at 2MB, 8MB or 8GB.
> The majority position lies somewhere in between (i.e.
> a one-time increase to 8MB). This is the position that ultimately matters.
I don't know where you get your "majority" from or what it even means
(majority of users, majority of the coins, of miners?)
But there's something I'm missing something there...why my position
doesn't matter if it's not a majority?
How is what the the majority has been told it's best an objective argument?
> If the block size is increased to 8MB and things get demonstrably a whole
> lot worse, then you will have a solid leg to stand on. In that case we can
> always do another hard fork later to reduce the block size back to something
> smaller, and henceforth the block size will never be touched again.
Yes.
And if we can "break things" in simulations first before we "break
things" in production, maybe we don't need the later hardfork to "fix
things" (if it's still possible to fix them without completely
restarting the ASIC market).
The fact is that we don't have a single simulation that can tell you
"too centralized/shouldn't affect mining centralization much" for a
given block size.
So if you say 8, I must ask, why not 9?
Why 9 MB is not safe for mining centralization but 8 MB is?
There is NO criterion based on mining centralization to decide between
2 sizes in favor of the small one.
It seems like the rationale it's always "the bigger the better" and
the only limitation is what a few people concerned with mining
centralization (while they still have time to discuss this) are
willing to accept. If that's the case, then there won't be effectively
any limit in the long term and Bitcoin will probably fail in its
decentralization goals.
I think its the proponents of a blocksize change who should propose
such a criterion and now they have the tools to simulate different
block sizes.
I want us to simulate many blocksizes before rushing into a decision
(specially because I disagree that taking a decision there is urgent
in the first place).
|
