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 80D1883D for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 20:44:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f174.google.com (mail-ig0-f174.google.com [209.85.213.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B78F17D for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 20:44:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igui7 with SMTP id i7so27116485igu.1 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:44:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=PjkiE0EA8pZXlp/OenQU2QWbS2U1bSM5TYqdmdO+3z0=; b=vxsHxI0sb6CKutwjOHw9kmaG32xYS3pz/0YOlU+yhNt14jStt6Ds0y8vLTXWiDgT3d w7t0nRHasmjwaPgY8c1xHiH/Iz7m0s+DLkJCiTGINqlcJ+dRET8UanSgv+ebcp/nRYlr GrpyC15uv0HrZTv9/C8G9uVuGq9Hto5BuDrOO96jqg5Ur1Ttojv/utMsNbGuhs2RrILp MEvRKPaMRkdK9inOljVxWIbqwtb8Epp37PvY+mWFl1nLxI1fabDVzCCjdEkUf8dHM0bG QPwA2NVrgnKfA8gzK6cR/J4TWBE/KOYm9rLObg1Nk6RVI9K9Bl/HBnB70aPMAC9PMJnz oCsw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.43.137 with SMTP id w9mr4023846igl.30.1439239453422; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:44:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.24.198 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:44:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:44:13 -0400 Message-ID: From: Michael Ruddy To: Sergio Demian Lerner Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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] If you had a single chance to double the transactions/second Bitcoin allows... 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: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 20:44:14 -0000 Sergio, you raise an interesting question. I had seen your message to the list related to this idea before [1], so I went back to research what the viewpoints and conclusions were, if any. I didn't find anything too conclusive, but I did find some persuasive points by Dave Hudson [2] [3] [4] [5] that seem to also favor increasing the target block creation rate (decreasing the target time interval between blocks). Considering that increasing the target block creation rate could reduce the effect of (but not solve [6]) the fundamental mismatch between transaction creation and the Poisson process of block discovery [7] and could reduce miner variance (possibly an aid to miner decentralization), I think I'd go with option B to answer your question. I wonder why this does not seem to ever gain more traction when you bring it up? The idea does not seem crazy. [1]: https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg07663.html [2]: https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg07665.html [3]: https://twitter.com/hashingitcom/status/595615823340908545 [4]: https://twitter.com/hashingitcom/status/605443289379143680 [5]: http://hashingit.com/analysis/34-bitcoin-traffic-bulletin [6]: https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/595611423151030272 [7]: http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent