From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Yy2RI-00065J-SD for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 28 May 2015 18:21:56 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.217.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.172; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-lb0-f172.google.com; Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com ([209.85.217.172]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Yy2RH-0002R8-G4 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 28 May 2015 18:21:56 +0000 Received: by lbbqq2 with SMTP id qq2so33936801lbb.3 for ; Thu, 28 May 2015 11:21:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.4.72 with SMTP id i8mr4250559lai.32.1432837309193; Thu, 28 May 2015 11:21:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.90.75 with HTTP; Thu, 28 May 2015 11:21:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator> Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 14:21:48 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Pieter Wuille Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01494248d5e6f10517286ed3 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gavinandresen[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Yy2RH-0002R8-G4 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB stepfunction X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 18:21:56 -0000 --089e01494248d5e6f10517286ed3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > I personally think the block size should increase, by the way, but only if > we can do it under a policy of doing it after technological growth has been > shown to be sufficient to support it without increased risk. > > Can you be more specific about this? What risks are you worried about? I've tried to cover all that I've heard about in my blog posts about why I think the risks of 20MB blocks are outweighed by the benefits, am I missing something? (blog posts are linked from http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks ) There is the "a sudden jump to a 20MB max might have unforseen consequences" risk that I don't address, but a dynamic increase would fix that. -- -- Gavin Andresen --089e01494248d5e6f10517286ed3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= hu, May 28, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com<= /a>> wrote:

I= personally think the block size should increase, by the way, but only if w= e can do it under a policy of doing it after technological growth has been = shown to be sufficient to support it without increased risk.

=

Can you be more specific about this? What risks are you worried about?<= /div>

I'= ve tried to cover all that I've heard about in my blog posts about why = I think the risks of 20MB blocks are outweighed by the benefits, am I missi= ng something?

Th= ere is the "a sudden jump to a 20MB max might have unforseen consequen= ces" risk that I don't address, but a dynamic increase would fix t= hat.

--
--
Gavin = Andresen

--089e01494248d5e6f10517286ed3--