From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YzaI4-0000nI-HJ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 00:42:48 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-pd0-f173.google.com ([209.85.192.173]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YzaI3-00041N-Cf for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 00:42:48 +0000 Received: by pdjm12 with SMTP id m12so37004888pdj.3 for ; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 17:42:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=B4asj+2JCNVlGQd9EVUCXO2r6heIyRTJVKcejFa0UBs=; b=hZdu4NZp57262flzo6aKwUcPfegFjn4K56dAdGy1LwnxaRPSyc4/zDnm+bJGhgTwEQ xVKjkiznjG5gql+lKwezfwB6+DB6C3Xvx4na7GUDOSkYK3Z1Pnu5e2B45BKGfa1kSZNR z47ub9kSdZliiBmb7mpMXRecMr3I7fgRMhN9oDWtjykY7P2trlqk/wwPbeLyJPvohE25 GtL9wBJCg3UvOrKY77A80LeOYfwXEEJxOdmlC44jqeqROWsFGyISxtJJAJJrLCYd4KeY IM0YpOFvuB5FGizQsb0e4o5G+cxtZ1nFvgNs9oE8t/VnZT9PAO9spTWV5WwrGkqG8dC/ 37zw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnXobFp5iNPtO94kNQ+Q4cRTjCvl7eoWVsbPsuPiGZDi3/SK5vPlDNziYSvY4ok4V+y7FEn X-Received: by 10.70.136.67 with SMTP id py3mr45157001pdb.112.1433205761371; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 17:42:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net. [99.8.65.117]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id nz2sm15465446pbb.40.2015.06.01.17.42.39 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 01 Jun 2015 17:42:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <556CFC01.9030309@thinlink.com> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 17:42:41 -0700 From: Tom Harding User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Back References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. X-Headers-End: 1YzaI3-00041N-Cf Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] soft-fork block size increase (extension blocks) 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: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 00:42:48 -0000 On 6/1/2015 10:21 AM, Adam Back wrote: > if it stays as is for a year, in a wait and see, reduce spam, see > fee-pressure take effect as it has before, work on improving improve > decentralisation metrics, relay latency, and do a blocksize increment > to kick the can if-and-when it becomes necessary and in the mean-time > try to do something more long-term ambitious about scale rather than > volume. What's your estimate of the lead time required to kick the can, if-and-when it becomes necessary? The other time-series I've seen all plot an average block size. That's misleading, because there's a distribution of block sizes. If you bin by retarget interval and plot every single block, you get this http://i.imgur.com/5Gfh9CW.png The max block size has clearly been in play for 8 months already.