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 663497AD for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:55:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com [209.85.212.177]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37B5219B for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:55:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so33973889wic.1 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 04:55:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=e/fdPp5CS9Y8QK28rRbKXGTGoDdl26OYpN8fVrwNMHE=; b=OUEQRdZcMbuhI7pqYgldG08jpOXSg/2Dm0qos2pH0IkiQgYKmRSEOiDD8m/r8sGODa sj+p025vDq6jhyJv56LyUzTCDTdnIRKyH8jllK1L9wZSszvb58MuXtyCkykbGAsUKjdY VI071/qXIPDKzMqnnfnbwv6d7kyRzqwfYQkr1o53xi4kaDNGX8GLWdp0mKKmWl284zcC BHpIvljAJp54+3h6Ke4bSh8wYK2MM/YTqHo5S1FCHZ4aQUmIVsvjwgnZD+SEdj8ych+x f8hdfukJU6JqaghIbBEVqhQaWo3BmmCfcqtTgQPy9wKZrIA3orzTCZaW5DHYJ2XyxHzU EB4A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk/Cb37je21Uzthl3PsypbSVgIm6aquYmqzDKJxvYJjlBY3c+yeA0P3G0vqmB4J/QIdy1kj MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.8.135 with SMTP id r7mr24056784wia.58.1439207703657; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 04:55:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 04:55:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:55:03 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 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: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:55:06 -0000 Gavin, I interpret the absence of response to these questions as a sign that everybody agrees that there's no other reason to increase the consensus block size other than to avoid minimum market fees from rising (above zero). Feel free to correct that notion at any time by answering the questions yourself. In fact if any other "big block size advocate" thinks there's more reason I would like to hear their reasons too. On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote: > > On Aug 7, 2015 5:55 PM, "Gavin Andresen" wrote: >> >> 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. > > What are the other 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 seriou= sly. > > When "the network runs out of capacity" (when we hit the limit) do we exp= ect > anything to happen apart from minimum market fees rising (above zero)? > Obviously any consequences of fees rising are included in this concern.