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 6FB3F8D4 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:13:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com [209.85.212.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C054D1A3 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:13:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so165867021wib.0 for ; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 06:13:54 -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; bh=RnY3R4rIGJYyGijSsdX40RRDj9SdQNi74qXCdkxUm2A=; b=HQ37KxbC9+rhlbwVFffjz8NABxx0UOmmBv+HUIHBagcqP2y1GzckxbiZGyhlkdCChr kAzhv8hk9zgahoY5RjHd0eqLWUlKC1sgTZI4vQiqq5HjgkTY2mgvRMhuCWsXX0e34jOH C+wb1/24SA676A8pyXmZ2IPnv/N6uCS9pku7tbyYTgeUgeWS+uBJPVplyWtS59mmkE7T YAp6wdpp3CA5yczCNFXDasIxNBpfJuOdX62g8Kf1vTdKOAVeLmXtOBqj/A3Rv4fZeISt zvgfHEQu6l++mts1KqfJ90evEeFvbxwqmAjz4XKy4scbVdZ5uXXohvU5ZchfpJzHyjhc Fkww== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlw3OPlQopsOOvHzdILtJ0l6s3uXwKXJ4UVI5tg70fOGKevsDRRZZTS/K3A9NgMJuQYmnh4 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.122.97 with SMTP id lr1mr8016691wjb.26.1438694034431; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 06:13:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 06:13:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:13:54 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Hector Chu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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] Block size following technological growth 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, 04 Aug 2015 13:13:56 -0000 On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Hector Chu wrote: > Things apparently aren't bad enough to prevent the majority from clamoring > for larger blocks. Nobody is preventing anyone from claiming anything. Some developers are encouraging users to ask for bigger blocks. Others don't want to impose consensus rule changes against the will of the users (even if they're 10% of the users). Still, "Things apparently aren't bad enough" is just your opinion. > If the majority agreed that things had got worse till this point, and that > this was to be blamed on the block size, they would be campaigning for the > other direction. Even yourselves aren't asking for a reduction in the block > size, as you know full well that you would be laughed out. 1) I don't care what the so-called "majority" thinks: I don't want to impose consensus rule changes against the will of a reasonable minority. 2) It doesn't matter who is to blame about the current centralization: the fact remains that the blocksize maximum is the only** consensus rule to limit mining centralization. 3) In fact I think Luke Dashjr proposed to reduced it to 400 KB, but I would ask the same thing: please create a simulation in which the change is better (or at least no much worse) than the current rules by ANY metric. Please read the point 2 with special attention because it's not the first time I say this in this thread. ** There's also the maximum block sigops consensus rule to limit mining centralization.