74041a6827125d7f90fdf8d3125051b369c2d3
1 Return-Path: <adam@cypherspace.org> 2 Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org 3 [172.17.192.35]) 4 by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB84F898 5 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; 6 Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:04:30 +0000 (UTC) 7 X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 8 Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.197]) 9 by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F862110 10 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; 11 Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:04:29 +0000 (UTC) 12 Received: from mail-qt0-f179.google.com ([209.85.216.179]) by 13 mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus003 [74.208.5.2]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 14 0Lbaph-1cu9QN3GEV-00lDiW for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; 15 Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:04:28 +0100 16 Received: by mail-qt0-f179.google.com with SMTP id v23so160628430qtb.0 17 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; 18 Tue, 10 Jan 2017 02:04:28 -0800 (PST) 19 X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKjq1xhCUS/7vRl/Etn/i+YLwKhpfl8U97B6qxNywj+Q+cNqlooO8Ed4L1kPAiOSqqf8TJxyFjZvTbzBA== 20 X-Received: by 10.237.45.195 with SMTP id i61mr1802187qtd.122.1484042667784; 21 Tue, 10 Jan 2017 02:04:27 -0800 (PST) 22 MIME-Version: 1.0 23 Received: by 10.12.144.130 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 02:04:27 -0800 (PST) 24 In-Reply-To: <127281C1AA02374F8AAD9EE04FAE878A02154E4E46@STUDMail1.muad.local> 25 References: <127281C1AA02374F8AAD9EE04FAE878A02154E4E46@STUDMail1.muad.local> 26 From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> 27 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:04:27 +0000 28 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CALqxMTGuSes78WybU7Q_fnPKynEoFCqp_A1vX1xYEq92tg6Qpg@mail.gmail.com> 29 Message-ID: <CALqxMTGuSes78WybU7Q_fnPKynEoFCqp_A1vX1xYEq92tg6Qpg@mail.gmail.com> 30 To: Ryan J Martin <rjmarti2@millersville.edu>, 31 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 32 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 33 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 34 X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:U0LzP+HJsXe58v6nSKf0DeMYgX3nJ+j+1GyNISs1PwjdwkfC8BC 35 4xXCsbBVVRycm0Cp013FyE7/Maa4uyWIMiTUngDR6/JRNBD7FB/PJH/+pP3uuFrRUDkWn4D 36 BOcrVO2SFFCQnHCsPpsUT6yTQZt2YfbPvFNaz890oRHqdBMgr8RRb+gMuqWUYtyWM0rbgZ5 37 BX+I3tfGYN80eWKjlc99w== 38 X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:dZ9j7WnlwX0=:rtSnydXOmFTqtCNvICfjHI 39 j97+nx2YclnpIgUXKpvyt/s7SOn3qflKY5QHvUqBXsdY4p01BK8rFvuBSZcYuI64KzuFOMl6z 40 CgZcxChy2SqXpgUKc/ex1uBC4U7HwhBe2W7TQ+DhnvusnxqXR0Ecf5MHkDod5SFqeqHOJgE5/ 41 FcWTiGfwg0uXDB9fG8EXqDKCy0hSRxfBa/SQRXdT5G3dri4NZU1NBTih6lXGi16N1qR9q+xi2 42 Y2lNVsATJPEyZtqw+yTRFMwuvv3n4u6RF1WxbNyaj/roU3zSTf1kV8rLd3U9DLqCpgfWQYKCX 43 Y+eCQcnPa1meyahnlznRUiW6IMwsfKC9odSQPTBeyXqdipqxUZtbSovtwHP6GT+m+620eF8PX 44 y9sP1XQpvz+0SRMlrlLMeT/2nfKC58ZjqAO1gYu84PYJCRtep+eeuk2Zl22GKzo8DV1oJgPKk 45 U1jeTZosBxTvg0/2jAo6hY/S4lzhRJI9GRY3U663tAunzXeYcIRwv+DydKihxsDAZpE158WF8 46 sHAwa6hsabHOL6wl4G0QsaJLb+skzk9oG8wMYpwJk83kV8UZTrWHbMqvE5LBis74C5yhgF6Y7 47 gaXgGoVDXXWS6qxo9H/a9k9fvNh4j9ecsi5y05i4vPsNrrih1SwXVjQpCuniFjvVFsynJojXL 48 USgTDFqipdXz9dS552I7piV34Ze33Hxpd74lOzuXbncaYOko8ra1UDWaKoehztNMpuy/WaFDW 49 /hgcWqN1bXr1CspV 50 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, 51 RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 52 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on 53 smtp1.linux-foundation.org 54 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Block75 - Historical and future projections 55 (t. khan) 56 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org 57 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 58 Precedence: list 59 List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> 60 List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, 61 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> 62 List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> 63 List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 64 List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> 65 List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, 66 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> 67 X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:04:30 -0000 68 69 See discussion on bitcoin-discuss on this topic last few days. People 70 may want to subscribe to that for more free wheeling discussion. 71 72 https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-discuss 73 74 Adam 75 76 On 10 January 2017 at 04:14, Ryan J Martin via bitcoin-dev 77 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: 78 > The adaptive/automatic block size notion has been around for a while= 79 --- others would be better able to speak to why it hasn't gotten traction. = 80 However my concern with something like that is that it doesn't regard the o= 81 ptimal economic equilibrium for tx fees/size---not that the current limit d= 82 oes either but the concern with an auto-adjusting size limit that ignores t= 83 his would be the potential to create unforeseen externalities for miners/u= 84 sers. Miners may decide it is more profitable to mine very small blocks to = 85 constrict supply and increase marginal fees and with how centralized mining= 86 is, where a dozen pools have 85% hashrate, a couple of pools could do this= 87 . Then on the other side, maybe the prisoner's dilemma would hold and all m= 88 iners would have minrelaytxfee set at zero and users would push the blocks = 89 to larger and larger sizes causing higher and higher latency and network is= 90 sues. 91 > Perhaps something like this could work (I can only speak to the econo= 92 mic side anyway) but it would have to have some solid code that has a socia= 93 l benefit model built in to adjust to an equilibrium that is able to optimi= 94 ze---as in maximizes benefit/minimize cost for both sides via a Marshallian= 95 surplus model--- for each size point. 96 > To be clear, I'm not saying an auto-adjusting limit is unworkable (a= 97 gain only from an economic standpoint), just that it would need to have the= 98 se considerations built in. 99 > 100 > -Ryan J. Martin 101 > 102 > 103 > ________________________________________ 104 > 105 > ------------------------------ 106 > 107 > Message: 2 108 > Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 14:52:31 -0500 109 > From: "t. khan" <teekhan42@gmail.com> 110 > To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 111 > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 112 > Subject: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Block75 - Historical and future 113 > projections 114 > Message-ID: 115 > <CAGCNRJpSV9zKxhVvqpMVPyFyXco_ABB9a7_ihaDKEKFPQ9v3sw@mail.gmail.c= 116 om> 117 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8" 118 > 119 > Using daily average block size over the past year (source: 120 > https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?daysAverageString=3D14&time= 121 span=3D1year 122 > ), here's how Block75 would have altered max block sizes: 123 > 124 > [image: Inline image 1] 125 > 126 > As of today, the max block size would be 1,135KB. 127 > 128 > Looking forward and using the last year's growth rate as a model: 129 > 130 > [image: Inline image 2] 131 > 132 > This shows the max block size one year from now would be 2,064KB, if 133 > Block75 activated today. 134 > 135 > Of course, this is just an estimate, but even accounting for a substantia= 136 l 137 > increase in transactions in the last quarter of 2017 and changes brought 138 > about by SegWit (hopefully) activating, Block75 alters the max size in su= 139 ch 140 > a way that allows for growth, keeps blocks as small as possible, *and* 141 > maintains transaction fees at a level similar to May/June 2016. 142 > 143 > If anyone has an alternate way to model future behavior, please run it 144 > through the Block75 algorithm. 145 > 146 > Every 2016 blocks, do this: 147 > 148 > new max blocksize =3D x + (x * (AVERAGE_CAPACITY - TARGET_CAPACITY)) 149 > 150 > TARGET_CAPACITY =3D 0.75 //Block75's target of keeping blocks 75% full 151 > AVERAGE_CAPACITY =3D average percentage full of the last 2016 blocks, as = 152 a 153 > decimal 154 > x =3D current max block size 155 > 156 > 157 > Thanks, 158 > 159 > - t.k. 160 > -------------- next part -------------- 161 > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... 162 > URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/= 163 20170109/b0e0b713/attachment.html> 164 > -------------- next part -------------- 165 > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... 166 > Name: Block75 2016.png 167 > Type: image/png 168 > Size: 32088 bytes 169 > Desc: not available 170 > URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/= 171 20170109/b0e0b713/attachment.png> 172 > -------------- next part -------------- 173 > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... 174 > Name: Block75 2017.png 175 > Type: image/png 176 > Size: 33176 bytes 177 > Desc: not available 178 > URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/= 179 20170109/b0e0b713/attachment-0001.png> 180 > 181 > ------------------------------ 182 > 183 > _______________________________________________ 184 > bitcoin-dev mailing list 185 > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org 186 > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev 187 > 188 > 189 > End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 20, Issue 21 190 > ******************************************* 191 > _______________________________________________ 192 > bitcoin-dev mailing list 193 > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org 194 > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev 195