From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46364B88 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 11:18:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com (mail-pa0-f44.google.com [209.85.220.44]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFE4312C for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 11:18:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by padev16 with SMTP id ev16so81391614pad.0 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 04:18:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=qtAsSbhFfY2pg9dceHz44SFEgsJtCieZsyQwok1nfs8=; b=NSUAOmVy5cWGC/B4O5l3d7L9B4XaXPL4Iofk3EmlK9wvJUkpahL62hQfpuyCeIs1HB bsZ6u5rNBUSGQISQ7EaVdRsxIOlYN4DIcV6J+e5dSxwaYWjvv6YwjS8F/8kzRjT8h2uH ZiFw9twLDum8bI/MkqET4kwhkP20S8PyYEibv6JGtquJK+j6CFMRGoWpCkGaSUkGY7NJ Mfdi9TZ1Jk+G3GU5Gg0ztZKiJWz00xR+Fmu5r8izu2C1PDrMboXliBGmw2pvWQmf52ww NYvYZ80Lrydt8Whq1Ut3YvMoYFCpn05nC7h92yZ4ifBxMBz3sSA0YuCEFe1xfs3THaso QOwQ== X-Received: by 10.68.130.98 with SMTP id od2mr12375618pbb.73.1435403917521; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 04:18:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.102] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com. [76.167.237.202]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id oa14sm36232952pdb.47.2015.06.27.04.18.35 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 27 Jun 2015 04:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7CF2C3EF-74CC-4849-AE15-C700A680FA2D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6 From: Eric Lombrozo In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 04:18:33 -0700 Message-Id: <1E68C70C-B33E-4414-B48B-7A497B59C893@gmail.com> References: <20150627074259.GA25420@amethyst.visucore.com> <20150627095501.C59B541A40@smtp.hushmail.com> <20150627100400.GC25420@amethyst.visucore.com> <20150627102912.06E2641A3E@smtp.hushmail.com> To: =?utf-8?Q?Jorge_Tim=C3=B3n?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 11:18:38 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_7CF2C3EF-74CC-4849-AE15-C700A680FA2D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 The economic policy=E2=80=99s status quo has been to avoid fee pressure. = But the consensus status quo obviously is not to have a hard fork. There=E2=80=99s clearly a contradiction between these two policies, = which is a big part of the reason this issue has come to this point. = These two policies are fundamentally at odds. - Eric Lombrozo > On Jun 27, 2015, at 4:04 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n = wrote: >=20 > On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 12:29 PM, NxtChg wrote: >>=20 >> On 6/27/2015 at 1:04 PM, "Wladimir J. van der Laan" = wrote: >>=20 >>> Then you won't risk the other 'passengers' who don't consent to it. >>=20 >> But you can look at it the other way: what about risking the = 'passengers' when the plane suddenly doesn't fly anymore? >>=20 >> Increasing block limit increases the risk of centralization, but it = also keeps the current status quo of blocks not being filled, rather = then risking an unknown option of hitting the limit hard. >=20 > But that option is not unknown, that's the point of this thread. > "Doing nothing" would require to fix the mempool to scale with the > number of unconfirmed transaction. This is something that we will > eventually have to fix unless the plan is to eventually remove the > blocksize limit. > What will happen with full blocks is that fees will likely rise and > the transactions with bigger fees will get confirmed first. This is > something that will eventually happen unless the blocksize limit is > removed before ever being hit. > What this thread is saying is that this option (the so-called "doing > nothing" option, which actually requires more work than any of the > current proposals for increasing the blocksize) is perfectly valid, > which is in contradiction to a perceived "need to increase the > blocksize limit soon". Increasing the block size is only an option, > not a "need". And changing the consensus rules and forcing everybody > to adapt their software to the changes is certainly not "maintaining > the status quo", I'm getting tired of hearing that absurd notion. > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --Apple-Mail=_7CF2C3EF-74CC-4849-AE15-C700A680FA2D Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVjoaJAAoJEJNAI64YFENU5VAP/0CCm5ZfowlQuE4DPVeO+Hx4 /U7IWbpeWTmwFVZOC9/CO7ZzrvSPmmKJoKU7EV8whqmL+28zeJym3+uVtuJltCZH S3tqM9W6bZEFngw3RAetgcgeUcT5lRzQLGDB4yG/9VegCN6PJWsc4NPjA3cTRC5L NjBnf1x9sLnPZr6TUm0mOD0dcJzlz5ecqq67j66x55V8zG4AzzyXSOPnj+j4PxL+ wjv0RgYHYEx6P838QjykPjLvHCInLMSap49wpcQCeHPjKIfHhinLGLcTw+yKiTqb 5t+dnQNR7BU2MwDvNrdUH1WqFJQ6dKqcq+QYI/L2jHUXFOXgWubARTwwuajwmFJ+ jpecslVP84IyYTQx98uANSeBOCTB9KYt5FjaB0ms4HEnDKdq6qaMWySbaiSz6Nkg rpuD6rS98rhBCoie/G4J0wL6mDt7lmSX55V2ygirCNk84ljDC0fmBCP44AyLACxe PsOdgUN3whflrgpHsx9NorK3tbzG/+u0k9IykhjKmj+7FTXO0NZQrvutRtyfitIX aezHZJTdNr6Bsld5hBu56ZdXgefrkDoAgnLTzxOu0E9lKd64u9GbhTldLykwE5Fj 6XHGdtKAWCeFnMetGCBT+1+/g+JPY2N9HLKfGJ7bkeuM0SWohxxyfL8MFx+nb6pj zkiDNhwG/Jqim1J+UjSN =+ujz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_7CF2C3EF-74CC-4849-AE15-C700A680FA2D--