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 D0081485 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 00:55:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pd0-f170.google.com (mail-pd0-f170.google.com [209.85.192.170]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D00E8F for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 00:55:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pdbnt7 with SMTP id nt7so79210815pdb.0 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:55:24 -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=1XWznLtKvurPgE319LJGFQpQ3KCZYvBRuifVLpk/1S4=; b=l9dduS05WG7AT2hOcRgZExR91lPmAOQO34xaIhD1KMP8qhR+NmXonY68lgoW3deUVR 7DY7aZoF5Pv7SrzFjUBKLEiMdUHg72/1jKI/n2RwDaD/zwQZ7VPhyQ52zimLO691dm82 LP1T+/Zdl51O6mfAcAE/zy3WIQf2VNHjxI39cc8WkK7xDNGtgmC0eBlcr/OC5HLPpo6U yvXLOhYkqnXbG3eraYtEAweqPmOJ2etZ8pPomCXHxltZTcIn0MgmFxcn/1BMp0qOw9sw f3b9vg1F0s3bHUCZSpDsQaLUslzJoikUkIGKM1DK4UQwjF6G2vHm7Vep6hzFcuHGWy4e jbZA== X-Received: by 10.70.130.107 with SMTP id od11mr87587292pdb.145.1438131323942; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:55:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.107] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com. [76.167.237.202]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id de2sm37307324pdb.15.2015.07.28.17.55.21 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:55:22 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_028075CF-01EA-495A-9C79-DA8D992842AF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5 From: Eric Lombrozo In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:55:20 -0700 Message-Id: <35B780B8-7282-4C98-9A0D-C7774028E277@gmail.com> References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com> To: Mark Friedenbach 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,HTML_MESSAGE,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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn't temporary 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: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 00:55:25 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_028075CF-01EA-495A-9C79-DA8D992842AF Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6EADD47E-3D94-4AC3-AB98-C6E67D657F30" --Apple-Mail=_6EADD47E-3D94-4AC3-AB98-C6E67D657F30 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 I agree that the historical reasons are irrelevant from an engineering = perspective. But they still set a context for the discussion=E2=80=A6and = might help shed some insight into the motivations behind some of the = participants. It=E2=80=99s also good to know these things to counter = arguments that start with =E2=80=9CBut Satoshi said that=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D= What=E2=80=99s critically important to note is that several of the = assumptions that were being made at the time this limit was decided have = turned out wrong=E2=80=A6and that these other issues should probably be = of greater concern and more highly prioritized in any discussion = considering the merits of deploying potentially incompatible consensus = rule changes. It seems if these other issues were fixed perhaps no block = size limit would be required at all (as was originally hoped). - Eric > On Jul 28, 2015, at 5:46 PM, Mark Friedenbach = wrote: >=20 > Does it matter even in the slightest why the block size limit was put = in place? It does not. Bitcoin is a decentralized payment network, and = the relationship between utility (block size) and decentralization is = empirical. Why the 1MB limit was put in place at the time might be a = historically interesting question, but it bears little relevance to the = present engineering issues. >=20 > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman via bitcoin-dev = > wrote: >=20 > > Enter a =E2=80=9Ctemporary=E2=80=9D anti-spam measure - a one = megabyte block size limit. Let=E2=80=99s test this out, then increase it = once we see how things work. So far so good=E2=80=A6 > > >=20 > The block size limit was put in place as an anti-DoS measure (monster = blocks), not "anti-spam". It was never intended to have any economic = effect, not on spam and not on any future fee market. >=20 >=20 > jp >=20 > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org = > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev = >=20 --Apple-Mail=_6EADD47E-3D94-4AC3-AB98-C6E67D657F30 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 I agree that the historical reasons are irrelevant from an = engineering perspective. But they still set a context for the = discussion=E2=80=A6and might help shed some insight into the motivations = behind some of the participants. It=E2=80=99s also good to know these = things to counter arguments that start with =E2=80=9CBut Satoshi said = that=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D

What=E2=80=99s critically important to = note is that several of the assumptions that were being made at the time = this limit was decided have turned out wrong=E2=80=A6and that these = other issues should probably be of greater concern and more highly = prioritized in any discussion considering the merits of deploying = potentially incompatible consensus rule changes. It seems if these other = issues were fixed perhaps no block size limit would be required at all = (as was originally hoped).

- Eric

On = Jul 28, 2015, at 5:46 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org> wrote:

Does it matter even in the slightest why the block size limit = was put in place? It does not. Bitcoin is a decentralized payment = network, and the relationship between utility (block size) and = decentralization is empirical. Why the 1MB limit was put in place at the = time might be a historically interesting question, but it bears little = relevance to the present engineering issues.

On Tue, = Jul 28, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> = wrote:
> Enter a =E2=80=9Ctemporary=E2=80=9D anti-spam measure - a one = megabyte block size limit. Let=E2=80=99s test this out, then increase it = once we see how things work. So far so good=E2=80=A6
>

The block size limit was put in place as an anti-DoS measure = (monster blocks), not "anti-spam". It was never intended to have any = economic effect, not on spam and not on any future fee market.


jp

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<= /a>


= --Apple-Mail=_6EADD47E-3D94-4AC3-AB98-C6E67D657F30-- --Apple-Mail=_028075CF-01EA-495A-9C79-DA8D992842AF 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 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVuCR4AAoJEJNAI64YFENUR7cQAKvxddMCptFxkrm77Cf3f3Jg /7J9QEYC/zG/fj0tHUoUyIIlr1xXfgccW30s+uTj+vTP87vzGwKZtdMoVI83i6oS w7G2IHhT8J1YX23/ARi40dqYM5vQ2F+x+rbKWJa6iNIZw3DQWE7okCJHtGsiE88n cbD3z1n831pLfHcOSrf4J9FjAxWQH/DwJ8HJcl6UzAyBByOJDr4363WG3IaKE3Mm EeJQZUdCDKS0rWRieThCx9NQzMnVAelH5p5CHS1gvwQByEWw1Op72RN06yZy1nBi TyKfYHbksim6T2NkNhF/QnC0PPpcRLv/kO0HaUynRH7rS+rVvbl9OuELHuTAsRS2 LQFLPtVCorMIpzZyalcESuXJ1y+PQ21cJx4lb/ZNJzWNiQLwqE4Z24PHqtW0R4t0 61MNAG4U2cFHPiwzq9TI2PxTGfAz+MTu7ld4ZxfAczWZEBitWZhYnn76IunJOVaJ LtS5rU+LnyK3gpXphnvDfFJg5I4Uwp885SHctkvU4FsiTjuakyvMywsIhYfRO8cS uKAotC3Ou7cLaoLiGFvfdYwUkKVaHiAnonXtEKYh8sqJoQmiCtnQHBgvbddc0KDa oxZy+4QEtPp5lzWB+Wixf1wobEXxP0GlfXTZRsQyHursu7KjMRjGcWfHQPJsF76X DhHA3R8cv7dXvl5s5TQu =nNTS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_028075CF-01EA-495A-9C79-DA8D992842AF--