0a28435cc5c9f50ef774e8640f03fa96d59b9a
1 Return-Path: <gavinandresen@gmail.com> 2 Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org 3 [172.17.192.35]) 4 by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 406B94D3 5 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; 6 Fri, 7 Aug 2015 15:55:12 +0000 (UTC) 7 X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 8 Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com 9 [209.85.217.172]) 10 by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94435147 11 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; 12 Fri, 7 Aug 2015 15:55:11 +0000 (UTC) 13 Received: by lbbpo9 with SMTP id po9so63541710lbb.2 14 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; 15 Fri, 07 Aug 2015 08:55:09 -0700 (PDT) 16 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; 17 h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to 18 :cc:content-type; 19 bh=0N/4eiNNSTeartgxZzJ6sdwsonj7Rachs/DbcEP+b7k=; 20 b=lMN6PuQrYmS8dk/9BXTO2kfp5VU0gnZ/HYEmiPIbrnn6rNl+4UIWy8+Eba6QENwYmp 21 UnABuUFQGX0e6T8ur/FF6Gg9qbuvpedYime09BOb1V4Hn3HYQyVjP6QKaYoWhKs4q4ex 22 Ojvr49UzXlhGhh19Y7aWoShAwC2H8rybYmSWAr+w2SVEeWf+nNoRhZSzHrdoZ01tLl5r 23 DPiYIuH9Gg4N2BXzGMzJFy5eljikY3Q0F9zyY/rUBpcCkZSteCniUT8YQcoqzPh3wet1 24 nbKb05dAeC45Tv8TCiunyJqbGRVHfqUznNXokX4RMW9QdYOJqV5wi40ImamDHl3lVAww 25 W3/w== 26 MIME-Version: 1.0 27 X-Received: by 10.152.115.132 with SMTP id jo4mr8254623lab.113.1438962909700; 28 Fri, 07 Aug 2015 08:55:09 -0700 (PDT) 29 Received: by 10.25.143.195 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 08:55:09 -0700 (PDT) 30 In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBgOt=qhQVZv5P-4mcD75=L4PKgOfRqhyB6FZdSYQajrwQ@mail.gmail.com> 31 References: <CABsx9T16fH+56isq95m4+QWsKwP==tf75ep8ghnEcBoV4OtZJA@mail.gmail.com> 32 <CAPg+sBgOt=qhQVZv5P-4mcD75=L4PKgOfRqhyB6FZdSYQajrwQ@mail.gmail.com> 33 Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 11:55:09 -0400 34 Message-ID: <CABsx9T10y6-=c7Qg6jysnf38wRX3NA3wWozxGfE+mEYJvPeqWA@mail.gmail.com> 35 From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> 36 To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> 37 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c366d213e7c9051cbaa9de 38 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, 39 DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 40 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 41 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on 42 smtp1.linux-foundation.org 43 Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 44 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process 45 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org 46 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 47 Precedence: list 48 List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> 49 List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, 50 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> 51 List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> 52 List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 53 List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> 54 List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, 55 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> 56 X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 15:55:12 -0000 57 58 --001a11c366d213e7c9051cbaa9de 59 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 60 61 On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> 62 wrote: 63 64 > I guess my question (and perhaps that's what Jorge is after): do you feel 65 > that blocks should be increased in response to (or for fear of) such a 66 > scenario. 67 > 68 69 I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, and 70 yes, fear of Bad Things Happening as we run up against the 1MB limit is one 71 of the reasons. 72 73 I take the opinion of smart engineers who actually do resource planning and 74 have seen what happens when networks run out of capacity very seriously. 75 76 77 And if so, if that is a reason for increase now, won't it be a reason for 78 > an increase later as well? It is my impression that your answer is yes, 79 > that this is why you want to increase the block size quickly and 80 > significantly, but correct me if I'm wrong. 81 > 82 83 Sure, it might be a reason for an increase later. Here's my message to 84 in-the-future Bitcoin engineers: you should consider raising the maximum 85 block size if needed and you think the benefits of doing so (like increased 86 adoption or lower transaction fees or increased reliability) outweigh the 87 costs (like higher operating costs for full-nodes or the disruption caused 88 by ANY consensus rule change). 89 90 91 -- 92 -- 93 Gavin Andresen 94 95 --001a11c366d213e7c9051cbaa9de 96 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 97 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 98 99 <div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On F= 100 ri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieter Wuille <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D= 101 "mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">pieter.wuille@gmail.com<= 102 /a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:= 103 0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><d= 104 iv class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>I guess my questio= 105 n (and perhaps that's what Jorge is after): do you feel that blocks sho= 106 uld be increased in response to (or for fear of) such a scenario. </div></d= 107 iv></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think there are multiple = 108 reasons to raise the maximum block size, and yes, fear of Bad Things Happen= 109 ing as we run up against the 1MB limit is one of the reasons.</div><div><br= 110 ></div><div>I take the opinion of smart engineers who actually do resource = 111 planning and have seen what happens when networks run out of capacity very = 112 seriously.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu= 113 ote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex= 114 "><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><d= 115 iv>And if so, if that is a reason for increase now, won't it be a reaso= 116 n for an increase later as well? It is my impression that your answer is ye= 117 s, that this is why you want to increase the block size quickly and signifi= 118 cantly, but correct me if I'm wrong. <br></div></div></div></div></bloc= 119 kquote><div><br></div><div>Sure, it might be a reason for an increase later= 120 . Here's my message to in-the-future Bitcoin engineers: =C2=A0you shoul= 121 d consider raising the maximum block size if needed and you think the benef= 122 its of doing so (like increased adoption or lower transaction fees or incre= 123 ased reliability) outweigh the costs (like higher operating costs for full-= 124 nodes or the disruption caused by ANY consensus rule change).</div></div><d= 125 iv><br></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_signature">--<br>Gav= 126 in Andresen<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_signature"><br></div> 127 </div></div> 128 129 --001a11c366d213e7c9051cbaa9de-- 130