public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Draft BIP : fixed-schedule block size increase
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:50:43 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150623205042.GB18677@muck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBj0Zk-k7fjams1YWFESDYHHp+r=NeFQAnVgghppNKDGxg@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1929 bytes --]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:26:38PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Wladimir noted that 'The original presented intention of block size
> >> increase was a one-time "scaling" to grant time for more decentralizing
> >> solutions to develop'
> >>
> >> Comments?
> >>
> >
> > Consensus is that this process is too painful to go through once a year.
> > I agree.
> >
> 
> If you believe we will need to go through this process once a year, we are
> not talking about a one-time scaling to grant time for more decentralizing
> solutions. It means you think we should keep scaling. I don't disagree
> there - as long as we're talking about scaling as availability of
> bandwidth, storage and processing power increase, there is no reason
> Bitcoin's blockchain can't grow proportionally.
> 
> However, an initial bump 8 MB and the growth rate afterwards seem more like
> a no-effectively-limit-ever to me.

In particular, note how this bump is being proposed at a time when
blockchain space demand is so low that transactions usually cost well
under a penny each, a insignificant amount of money for almost all
use-cases.

> I fear that the wish of not wanting to deal with - admittedly - a very hard
> problem, resulted here in throwing away several protections we currently
> have. And yes, I know you believe 8 MB won't be created immediately. I
> truly, honestly, do not think so either. But I prefer a system where I
> don't need to rely on anyone's guesses for the future.

In that regard Jeff Garzik's proposal of a blocksize increase with a
miner vote feedback mechanism is a huge improvement over Gavin's
proposal.

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000008c0be16e152f86ab3a271a13c3f41c56228d72990abf7bd

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2015-06-23 20:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-06-22 18:18 [bitcoin-dev] Draft BIP : fixed-schedule block size increase Gavin Andresen
2015-06-22 18:33 ` Tier Nolan
2015-06-22 18:46   ` Gavin Andresen
2015-06-22 19:10 ` Martin Schwarz
2015-06-22 19:28   ` Tier Nolan
2015-06-22 19:54     ` Gavin Andresen
2015-06-22 20:12       ` Peter Todd
2015-06-22 19:23 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-23  7:35   ` Ross Nicoll
2015-08-17 15:58     ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-23 19:16   ` Peter Todd
2015-06-22 20:27 ` Kalle Rosenbaum
2015-06-22 20:46   ` Gavin Andresen
2015-06-22 20:51     ` Gavin Andresen
2015-06-22 21:52 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-23 19:28 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-23 20:12   ` Gavin Andresen
2015-06-23 20:26     ` Pieter Wuille
2015-06-23 20:50       ` Peter Todd [this message]
2015-06-24  6:14         ` grarpamp
2015-06-23 20:46     ` Peter Todd
2015-06-23 21:24       ` Gavin Andresen
2015-06-26 19:08         ` Peter Todd
2015-06-26 22:01           ` Ivan Brightly
2015-06-26 19:25         ` Peter Todd
2015-06-26 22:16           ` Simon Liu
2015-06-27  2:14             ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-23 20:55     ` Roy Badami
2015-06-24  1:43 ` odinn
2015-06-24  3:05   ` William Madden
2015-06-24  3:49     ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-24 13:06       ` Will
2015-06-24 13:44         ` Gavin Andresen
2015-06-25  0:32           ` Pindar Wong
2015-06-25 13:50       ` Gareth Williams
2015-06-25 14:07         ` Adam Back
2015-06-26 13:47           ` Tier Nolan
2015-06-26 15:13             ` Will
2015-06-26 17:39               ` Gavin Andresen
2015-06-26 19:07                 ` Will
2015-07-01 22:49             ` odinn
2015-08-17 13:15               ` Tier Nolan
2015-08-17 13:18                 ` Clément Elbaz
2015-08-19  3:45                 ` odinn
2015-08-17 16:11             ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-26 21:07 ` Carsten Otto
2015-06-22 19:32 Jean-Paul Kogelman
2015-06-22 20:43 ` Tier Nolan
2015-06-22 20:54 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-22 21:04   ` Stephen Morse
2015-06-22 21:32     ` Ross Nicoll
2015-08-17 15:54       ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-22 21:21   ` Gavin Andresen
2015-06-22 21:39     ` Patrick Strateman
2015-06-22 21:48     ` Tier Nolan
2015-06-23  7:59 Ross Nicoll
2015-06-24  4:31 Raystonn
2015-06-24 17:05 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-24 17:24   ` Roy Badami
2015-06-24 17:23 Raystonn
2015-06-24 17:24 ` Allen Piscitello
2015-06-24 17:28 ` Roy Badami

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20150623205042.GB18677@muck \
    --to=pete@petertodd.org \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=pieter.wuille@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox