From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Yr3On-00071F-In for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 09 May 2015 11:58:29 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.217.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.169; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-lb0-f169.google.com; Received: from mail-lb0-f169.google.com ([209.85.217.169]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Yr3Ol-0008WG-9B for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 09 May 2015 11:58:29 +0000 Received: by lbcga7 with SMTP id ga7so68502262lbc.1 for ; Sat, 09 May 2015 04:58:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.97.202 with SMTP id ec10mr1779755lbb.4.1431172700820; Sat, 09 May 2015 04:58:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.90.75 with HTTP; Sat, 9 May 2015 04:58:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator> Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 07:58:20 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Gregory Maxwell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133b1c471d9e80515a4dc1a 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: 1Yr3Ol-0008WG-9B Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step function 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: Sat, 09 May 2015 11:58:29 -0000 --001a1133b1c471d9e80515a4dc1a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 RE: fixing sigop counting, and building in UTXO cost: great idea! One of the problems with this debate is it is easy for great ideas get lost in all the noise. RE: a hard upper limit, with a dynamic limit under it: I like that idea. Can we drill down on the hard upper limit? There are lots of people who want a very high upper limit, right now (all the big Bitcoin companies, and anybody who thinks as-rapid-as-possible growth now is the best path to long-term success). This is the "it is OK if you have to run full nodes in a data center" camp. There are also lots of people who want an upper limit low enough that they can continue to run Bitcoin on the hardware and Internet connection that they have (or are concerned about centralization, so want to make sure OTHER people can continue to run....). Is there an upper limit "we" can choose to make both sets of people mostly happy? I've proposed "must be inexpensive enough that a 'hobbyist' can afford to run a full node" ... Is the limit chosen once, now, via hard-fork, or should we expect multiple hard-forks to change it "when necessary" ? The economics change every time the block reward halves, which make me think that might be a good time to adjust the hard upper limit. If we have a hard upper limit and a lower dynamic limit, perhaps adjusting the hard upper limit (up or down) to account for the block reward halving, based on the dynamic limit.... RE: the lower dynamic limit algorithm: I REALLY like that idea. -- -- Gavin Andresen --001a1133b1c471d9e80515a4dc1a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
RE: fixing sigop counting, and building in UTXO cost: grea= t idea! One of the problems with this debate is it is easy for great ideas = get lost in all the noise.

RE: a hard upper limit, with = a dynamic limit under it:

I like that idea. Can we= drill down on the hard upper limit?

There are lot= s of people who want a very high upper limit, right now (all the big Bitcoi= n companies, and anybody who thinks as-rapid-as-possible growth now is the = best path to long-term success). This is the "it is OK if you have to = run full nodes in a data center" camp.

There = are also lots of people who want an upper limit low enough that they can co= ntinue to run Bitcoin on the hardware and Internet connection that they hav= e (or are concerned about centralization, so want to make sure OTHER people= can continue to run....).

Is there an upper limit= "we" can choose to make both sets of people mostly happy? I'= ve proposed "must be inexpensive enough that a 'hobbyist' can = afford to run a full node" ...

Is the limit c= hosen once, now, via hard-fork, or should we expect multiple hard-forks to = change it "when necessary" ?

The economi= cs change every time the block reward halves, which make me think that migh= t be a good time to adjust the hard upper limit. If we have a hard upper li= mit and a lower dynamic limit, perhaps adjusting the hard upper limit (up o= r down) to account for the block reward halving, based on the dynamic limit= ....



RE: the lower d= ynamic limit algorithm: =C2=A0I REALLY like that idea.

=
--
--
Gavi= n Andresen
--001a1133b1c471d9e80515a4dc1a--