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
|
Return-Path: <roconnor@blockstream.io>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F37762C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:34:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qt0-f179.google.com (mail-qt0-f179.google.com
[209.85.216.179])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 882D1249
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:34:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qt0-f179.google.com with SMTP id w20so86388243qtb.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:34:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=blockstream-io.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=V++YOYsv/qHpdzsYAPANzttK+EU8L5mDliNnN0qaJ2o=;
b=Zuda9bLBPEp5QI3hdfRdQ28WkcXyiPAls8FFszZxx5rMFEvFJt+sh7Fpf1UqZ0ig5c
tu3Akyu+YoCCOweaI2H+rJ0hN+xWMeyBLoFwAa4TcLeZIcWdOwCyQWP/o/IWvMQPgfvy
ZZkd205cm/cAW/hgUbtMWsw85q+XwpF2/C0v0zokH+F/v8AEKTFGfF19DWDh+ZO7NSRX
UQdWdQ2gG0mV2l51WhO/TEsRoBShxLBWg7KVgXo4xhMd74Q9YelIGPoq6bj2bn00vUy+
OzTvD5csSVURD5b/dQzF/2paUBd4CtRKUcAFBeG4IZzOBR44qB54Dcaw/KR/A5oNmrlV
4NSg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=V++YOYsv/qHpdzsYAPANzttK+EU8L5mDliNnN0qaJ2o=;
b=KJ77PLmjj0V0m7jbN8BV//V3TLHzEjLvVlwSZdqiSZAzU44+of3azKTX+NympMT8LP
1pNtkYT5Vt6IHQAa3sLcxcWVxHxLtmHMBZWkAOs7lZYciW1+eKWYDMiNoJRt9urWwzXQ
xAAmEaOBNuDqfPylcfu7yBNQJfeggMcMGZfZuGjo6D1mtGzd/PQHPvOeBiaVzVDEtomk
3kGK8lxu861L9fGW9mqIwdCHBBaFzwlN/zU6ZpsMkcwhgyi8TgiCIvZ4DVk+mCzu2n8V
zSBqqA3O9k+Ro/L3JVe0cs65EbwunzQrHu/y3rL5AiJDF79401mgcJ7tP8W3mQ8Ab34n
bgpg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLGpod8WCo8NR/yA3X3RR/hFi+kJ0Lqfeb9AdERPjuI1AvidxPXomagrfARqb/1MaRRelk6QNJcS1//Mjxe
X-Received: by 10.200.42.227 with SMTP id c32mr9634339qta.70.1485549254619;
Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:34:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.12.130.67 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:34:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.12.130.67 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:34:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAMZUoK=eb3jgA7Rwt38tvZt0tYk7gRVPc_2=HUWg1L_vaD93uw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201701270107.01092.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAAy62_+1OjF3V5g4wpOyW0KtNGodddJu_cxOfG-f+8LB7D=rPA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAy62_JuWMQ=HMmcw8GsQSDM8S+4LJeG1GHw1OdT+mQC3H-DOA@mail.gmail.com>
<201701270414.18553.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAAy62_LHtrx7k73kznMpPvheA--0T9YiHkjHArf2KK0Qt+ViUg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAy62_LeNi1djDmArX0RWW=rD0GJU9eSqCy0o4G9eg3Y7O+0Wg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMZUoKnxqxvPQehdWo1ZaHB-1-od4cHvJRDTmF5x7ty1CdLbUQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMZUoK=eb3jgA7Rwt38tvZt0tYk7gRVPc_2=HUWg1L_vaD93uw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream.io>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 15:34:13 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMZUoKmUH7ah7pnUgLHFtwYacw2=v3rJ0-csJ8thRy=REM92iw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Johnson <andrew.johnson83@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11404b3a9e4b1b0547196307
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM 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] Three hardfork-related BIPs
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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, 27 Jan 2017 20:34:18 -0000
--001a11404b3a9e4b1b0547196307
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Jan 27, 2017 03:03, "Andrew Johnson via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.
linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Other researchers have come to the conservative conclusion that we could
handle 4MB blocks today.
I believe this is a mischaracterization of the research conclusions. The
actual conclusion was that the maximum value for the blocksize that the
network can safely handle (at that time) is some value that is
(conservatively) no more than 4MB. This is because the research only
studies one aspect of the effect of blocksize on the network at a time and
the true safe value is the minimum of all aspects. For example, the 4MB
doesn't cover the aspect of quadratic hashing for large transactions in
large blocks.
--001a11404b3a9e4b1b0547196307
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"auto"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><br><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote">On Jan 27, 2017 03:03, "Andrew Johnson via bitcoin-d=
ev" <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" targe=
t=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:</div=
><div class=3D"gmail_quote" dir=3D"auto"><br><blockquote class=3D"m_9040702=
076880917011quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pa=
dding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto"><div dir=3D"auto">Other researchers have =
come to the conservative conclusion that we could handle 4MB blocks today.<=
/div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D=
"auto">I believe this is a mischaracterization of the research conclusions.=
=C2=A0 The actual conclusion was that the maximum value for the blocksize t=
hat the network can safely handle (at that time) is some value that is (con=
servatively) no more than 4MB.=C2=A0 This is because the research only stud=
ies one aspect of the effect of blocksize on the network at a time and the =
true safe value is the minimum of all aspects.=C2=A0 For example, the 4MB d=
oesn't cover the aspect of quadratic hashing for large transactions in =
large blocks.</div></div>
--001a11404b3a9e4b1b0547196307--
|
