public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: jl2012@xbt.hk
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 14:17:32 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6786132febd22f90c4107285920d76ca@xbt.hk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBiaT-2sjedA1mLOQo+q7=DjJ2yRuy7E4Gb3Wn8R-DzRTQ@mail.gmail.com>

Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-08-07 12:28 寫到:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Gavin Andresen
> <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieter Wuille
>> <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I guess my question (and perhaps that's what Jorge is after): do
>>> you feel that blocks should be increased in response to (or for
>>> fear of) such a scenario.
>> 
>> I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size,
>> and yes, fear of Bad Things Happening as we run up against the 1MB
>> limit is one of the reasons.
>> 
>> I take the opinion of smart engineers who actually do resource
>> planning and have seen what happens when networks run out of
>> capacity very seriously.
> 
> This is a fundamental disagreement then. I believe that the demand is
> infinite if you don't set a fee minimum (and I don't think we should),
> and it just takes time for the market to find a way to fill whatever
> is available - the rest goes into off-chain systems anyway. You will
> run out of capacity at any size, and acting out of fear of that
> reality does not improve the system. Whatever size blocks are actually
> produced, I believe the result will either be something people
> consider too small to be competitive ("you mean Bitcoin can only do 24
> transactions per second?" sounds almost the same as "you mean Bitcoin
> can only do 3 transactions per second?"), or something that is very
> centralized in practice, and likely both.

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?


  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-08-07 18:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 94+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-08-07 14:57 [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process Gavin Andresen
2015-08-07 15:16 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-07 15:55   ` Gavin Andresen
2015-08-07 16:28     ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-07 17:47       ` Ryan Butler
2015-08-07 18:25         ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-07 18:57           ` Ryan Butler
2015-08-07 19:07             ` Ryan Butler
2015-08-07 19:15               ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-07 20:17                 ` Ryan Butler
2015-08-07 20:33                   ` Dave Hudson
2015-08-07 18:17       ` jl2012 [this message]
2015-08-07 18:35         ` Bryan Bishop
2015-08-07 18:36         ` Simon Liu
2015-08-11 23:20       ` Elliot Olds
2015-08-07 17:33     ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-07 22:12       ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-07 23:06         ` Adam Back
2015-08-08 22:45           ` Dave Scotese
2015-08-08 23:05             ` Alex Morcos
2015-08-09  5:52               ` Hector Chu
2015-08-09 10:32               ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-09 10:42             ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-09 20:43               ` Dave Scotese
2015-08-11 17:03                 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-10 11:55       ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-10 12:33         ` Btc Drak
2015-08-10 13:03           ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-10 22:13         ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-11 17:47           ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-11 18:46             ` Michael Naber
2015-08-11 18:48               ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-11 18:55                 ` Michael Naber
2015-08-11 19:45                   ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-11 21:31                     ` Michael Naber
2015-08-11 18:51               ` Bryan Bishop
2015-08-11 18:59                 ` Michael Naber
2015-08-11 19:27               ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-11 19:37                 ` Michael Naber
2015-08-11 19:51                   ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-11 21:18                     ` Michael Naber
2015-08-11 21:23                       ` Adam Back
2015-08-11 21:30                         ` Angel Leon
2015-08-11 21:32                           ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-11 21:34                           ` Adam Back
2015-08-11 21:39                             ` Michael Naber
2015-08-12  6:10                               ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-08-11 22:06                             ` Angel Leon
2015-08-11 21:35                         ` Michael Naber
2015-08-11 21:51                           ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-12  3:35                             ` Elliot Olds
2015-08-12  4:47                               ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-08-14 21:47                                 ` Elliot Olds
2015-08-12  0:56                         ` Tom Harding
2015-08-12  1:18                       ` Eric Voskuil
2015-08-12  8:10                     ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-12  9:00                       ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-12  9:25                         ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-11 19:53                   ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-11 20:56                     ` Michael Naber
2015-08-12  7:54                 ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-12  8:01             ` Thomas Zander
     [not found]             ` <1679272.aDpruqxXDP@coldstorage>
2015-08-12  8:51               ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-12  9:23                 ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-12  9:45                   ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-12 16:24                     ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-17 14:49                     ` BitMinter operator
2015-08-17 15:01                       ` Peter Todd
2015-08-10 14:12       ` Gavin Andresen
2015-08-10 14:24         ` Alex Morcos
2015-08-10 22:12           ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-10 14:34         ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-10 22:04           ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-20 14:40           ` Will Madden
2015-08-10 14:55         ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-10 22:09           ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-10 22:52             ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-10 23:11               ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-11  5:34               ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-11  6:03                 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-11  6:31                   ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-11  7:08                     ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-11  8:38                       ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-11  9:14                         ` Angel Leon
2015-08-11 19:00                           ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-11 19:26                             ` Michael Naber
2015-08-11 20:12                               ` Adam Back
2015-08-12  0:32                           ` odinn
2015-08-11 11:10                       ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-12  0:18                       ` odinn
2015-08-07 21:30   ` Jim Phillips
2015-08-07 18:22 ` Anthony Towns
2015-08-07 18:36 ` Peter R
2015-08-12  1:56 Corey Haddad

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=6786132febd22f90c4107285920d76ca@xbt.hk \
    --to=jl2012@xbt.hk \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=pieter.wuille@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox