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 E728C8EC for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 18:36:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com [209.85.212.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E95F244 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 18:36:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so76422125wib.1 for ; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 11:36:10 -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=DbFf+z45KhIwlV+ZHcKMjb7wBO/LyVAvaMmqLwCAJiU=; b=ODKYpP+kGPfma+Ldy8aC1gfIEG+f3eICkaD/ydQ6/8TTTkoaF0VnpRWIViUNc2ZFvJ 2HIdemeFwqkLjdawtpGv9podYJc2WXI3MYZG1lzS1axaVKRa/TwQ9tGoSuBxJ0vvRtxQ 3yM9yrla3qYn2Z5V4R3IdcTIEmdwJSmu8YNulrcuJm137tOVE5giTOHAr5dTdQ4Zjmfe DvWFyCGrrT+jXJMHVFNMnd7WdEHG2klLXmIyvegVKqpVviHgAMuWBfjqDRGp/gPqur/v 0PFq8E6lyRkJMl+vL+FkBU9DzUHnUt3JdAZ1wRDt5cvlIb7LN6ZfZ8Q8DD9MVl/Ob0/z abhw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlmABBAok5qx5gPX1Y/oAJob+BZ6Ws24BuzjR9l6xUS4B/KLbKO615aH5g2OCMKTphDZ/q/ X-Received: by 10.180.21.244 with SMTP id y20mr9730951wie.65.1438972569889; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 11:36:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.10.40.141] (ns346200.ip-5-196-80.eu. [5.196.80.160]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id pg9sm15807213wjb.40.2015.08.07.11.36.02 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 07 Aug 2015 11:36:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55C4FA91.5090009@bitcartel.com> Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 11:36:01 -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: jl2012@xbt.hk, Pieter Wuille References: <6786132febd22f90c4107285920d76ca@xbt.hk> In-Reply-To: <6786132febd22f90c4107285920d76ca@xbt.hk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process 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, 07 Aug 2015 18:36:12 -0000 That's a good question. An argument has been put forward that a larger block size would reduce the security of the network, so does the converse hold? On 08/07/2015 11:17 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev wrote: > What if we reduce the block size to 0.125MB? That will allow 0.375tx/s. > If 3->24 sounds "almost the same", 3->0.375 also sounds almost the same. > We will have 50000 full nodes, instead of 5000, since it is so > affordable to run a full node. > > If 0.125MB sounds too extreme, what about 0.5/0.7/0.9MB? Are we going to > have more full nodes? > > No, I'm not trolling. I really want someone to tell me why we > should/shouldn't reduce the block size. Are we going to have more or > less full nodes if we reduce the block size? > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev