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 987FC305 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:38:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f45.google.com (mail-pa0-f45.google.com [209.85.220.45]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4634A144 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:38:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pabvl15 with SMTP id vl15so70717296pab.1 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 08:38:25 -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=LboKDJrgJ13SlenlJYBVkWNJFr0BmJReK0aAk8yBw+s=; b=GQEEE6nS33q9P1quxK6V+Fd/1Ljx8xifpJccfcyXWCPwaARE3n2+IxghYb59Q+6IeM eyQVdvUu//VvTgU3xzjoGPHXqwH2n8sXcA7HxWdpho+GbFykiyyHWLKr6eRp1yNZCHam smC2bO3Ve7mOkOflHc9vLNDVM3D1Jayy+wtS2YMBmhK4/Li585Z47JPSAHnjLB7xiXaw debZD3Ipo6N+aQMKPn8pdPm/97WAx6IhI35aebHtSna3Wy3ZXFbA6qYIPSByyoK2stho IafH96SAjUQDJXGraLNgASTjlFAkpqCuBNC8hYJ5KBxzsUHiDtM7cSnXRff6C1JCyggc yb9Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnfxK/AJg2mKBrxDKAShRbo0S45sgL7gzqo6O/Ypsh1Et5pPUybZI5uKZFV0RkmFjb3OYoo X-Received: by 10.70.0.202 with SMTP id 10mr4489853pdg.41.1435333105035; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 08:38:25 -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 r9sm33787228pdp.5.2015.06.26.08.38.22 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 26 Jun 2015 08:38:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <558D71EF.1060603@thinlink.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 08:38:23 -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: Pieter Wuille References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:38:25 -0000 On 6/26/2015 7:09 AM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > Furthermore, systems that compete with Bitcoin in this space already > offer orders of magnitude more capacity than we can reasonably achieve > with any blockchain technology at this point. "Reasonably achievable" is a guideline that would keep bitcoin out of trouble caused by either too little, or too much, declared capacity.=20 This matches Gavin's thinking, though you may differ on the numbers. > it seems silly to make a huge increase at once... Unless it is reasonably achievable. Leave the rest to the free market.