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 3724FBC3 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:55:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pd0-f180.google.com (mail-pd0-f180.google.com [209.85.192.180]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE31D11F for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:55:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pdjd13 with SMTP id d13so13714544pdj.0 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:55:08 -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=/V7P3BgpnsEPkAwCiGVaG/SsqtNyqfM06ZpJAzWY4Wg=; b=eHewhomsb8ivr85xQ87W4CvE6/J1uhk4QQikHnvIvajcRu9jwmIhPGthwVhCbjR1Xj 5dbLdTfe/4IAgWXtFzWcWcFd9twu0D7iaTwxi6KKGFAqWFmEKyvBw4oo1bcN85imSu9b 8o8klMpb+u5f4aboPN3fezKW22/NoY/lOOrHi6yPk5PQRCfohDpTYKSCyEp82VcD2D5Q wUo3LlVbEs5bFRL3dqPTyHWqz2owu2sYxK+AaSBRshFREg8rRSyH93YSRxPFnBRMTo/H gdeG2HTqjP3wk0Oul2LyRWoPovfoJ7obPphd946l6GAI1g2SxkfP6WrOZaZsaQAQHVKv E6Jw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnbhxLuBPoUmo/Z3omr8T4olGqFEg7e61nFgZGdsRaSxQNFMn7MP9PbDNxMw/yjR+0aAMcZ X-Received: by 10.68.189.42 with SMTP id gf10mr48472260pbc.55.1435704908468; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:55:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.31] (173-11-70-186-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [173.11.70.186]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fb3sm46641911pbd.91.2015.06.30.15.55.07 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:55:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55931E4A.80402@bitcartel.com> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:55:06 -0700 From: Simon Liu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Back , Michael Naber References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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] block-size tradeoffs & hypothetical alternatives (Re: Block size increase oppositionists: please clearly define what you need done to increase block size to a static 8MB, and help do it) 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: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:55:09 -0000 My understanding is that BIP 101 has working code to raise the block size and is ready for evaluation today. When will Lightning and Sidechains be ready so that a fair and controlled test can be made? On 06/30/2015 12:54 PM, Adam Back wrote: > People who would like to try the higher tier data-center and > throughput by high bandwidth use route should in my opinion run that > experiment as a layer 2 side-chain or analogous. There are a few ways > to do that. And it would be appropriate to my mind that we discuss > them here also. > > An experiment like that could run in parallel with lightning, maybe it > could be done faster, or offer different trade-offs, so could be an > interesting and useful thing to see work on. >