From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Yypzo-0000hi-RN for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 30 May 2015 23:16:52 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.192.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.44; envelope-from=brianchoffman@gmail.com; helo=mail-qg0-f44.google.com; Received: from mail-qg0-f44.google.com ([209.85.192.44]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Yypzn-00014H-SU for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 30 May 2015 23:16:52 +0000 Received: by qgfa63 with SMTP id a63so39482102qgf.0 for ; Sat, 30 May 2015 16:16:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.229.48.200 with SMTP id s8mr17841830qcf.0.1433027806409; Sat, 30 May 2015 16:16:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.126.96.179] (mobile-166-171-057-242.mycingular.net. [166.171.57.242]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 92sm1520728qgi.13.2015.05.30.16.16.44 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 30 May 2015 16:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-14DE21AB-D8E2-4396-8074-155E9FB89393 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Brian Hoffman X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12F70) In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 19:16:42 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <44570322-FBAE-4BAF-A0DA-2E478EF436B4@gmail.com> References: <554BE0E1.5030001@bluematt.me> To: Alex Mizrahi X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (brianchoffman[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 MIME_QP_LONG_LINE RAW: Quoted-printable line longer than 76 chars -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Yypzn-00014H-SU Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 23:16:52 -0000 --Apple-Mail-14DE21AB-D8E2-4396-8074-155E9FB89393 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Why 20 MB? Do you anticipate 20x transaction count growth in 2016? Do you anticipate linear growth? > On May 30, 2015, at 6:05 PM, Alex Mizrahi wrote: >=20 > =20 >> Why 2 MB ? >=20 > Why 20 MB? Do you anticipate 20x transaction count growth in 2016? >=20 > Why not grow it by 1 MB per year? > This is a safer option, I don't think that anybody claims that 2 MB blocks= will be a problem. > And in 10 years when we get to 10 MB we'll get more evidence as to whether= network can handle 10 MB blocks. >=20 > So this might be a solution which would satisfy both sides: > * people who are concerned about block size growth will have an opportu= nity to stop it before it grows too much (e.g. with a soft fork), > * while people who want bigger blocks will get an equivalent of 25% per= year growth within the first 10 years, which isn't bad, is it? >=20 > So far I haven't heard any valid arguments against linear growth. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development --Apple-Mail-14DE21AB-D8E2-4396-8074-155E9FB89393 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Why 20 MB? D= o you anticipate 20x transaction count growth in 2016?

Do you anticipate linear gr= owth?

On May 30, 2015, at 6:05 PM, Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com> wrote:
 
<= span class=3D"">
Why 2 MB ?

Why 20 MB? Do you anticipate 20x transaction c= ount growth in 2016?

Why not grow it by 1 MB per ye= ar?
This is a safer option, I don't think that anybody claims that= 2 MB blocks will be a problem.
And in 10 years when we get to 10 M= B we'll get more evidence as to whether network can handle 10 MB blocks.

So this might be a solution which would satisfy both s= ides:
  *  people who are concerned about block size gro= wth will have an opportunity to stop it before it grows too much (e.g. with a= soft fork),
  *  while people who want bigger blocks wi= ll get an equivalent of 25% per year growth within the first 10 years, which= isn't bad, is it?

So far I haven't heard any valid= arguments against linear growth.
--------------------= ----------------------------------------------------------
<= /blockquote>
___________________________= ____________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list=
Bitco= in-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sour= ceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
= --Apple-Mail-14DE21AB-D8E2-4396-8074-155E9FB89393--