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 71CB6BDA for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 17:04:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-la0-f45.google.com (mail-la0-f45.google.com [209.85.215.45]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0544243 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 17:04:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lanb10 with SMTP id b10so73075756lan.3 for ; Tue, 08 Sep 2015 10:04:17 -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=0Q66bDgQxDcSfjXmznhQVHA68VNKuH12IlW3QIyLMGI=; b=y7V9wldobLd3OHDduLNyCKYzwCaaDKCdpZkHZC51RSpgJRiPJdBnQ1bRrCaBNLTEzI s+6RI1ArYvYCJqz9XdJr7/fwvB3HBmfBsnC6e4Wwh56I8ZWvhw3/cnx4GfD2+2Y0MEEJ 2S+10KnsrlPrhkSaD7fDEAteo8oDxGFQRx5W5BLLtAxKmfdIbt+xnrWoXbKIozyWxhAo VIMxpyafPhGqyiv8xPe29Zd+cHqWU8uiq0Jm681pX8xGWpvWCu3nK836ULs85tJY55FL znoCSiC4JAM1I7NZ5yYoiA6QUFIIyp5Zxi2+sUqFuBfGipu0rGnLJXv8y0WYi4RdmTms YkZw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.43.228 with SMTP id z4mr21301681lal.99.1441731856975; Tue, 08 Sep 2015 10:04:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.41.148 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:04:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:04:16 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Washington Sanchez Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2280c325b92051f3f5b75 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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] Dynamic limit to the block size - BIP draft discussion 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, 08 Sep 2015 17:04:19 -0000 --001a11c2280c325b92051f3f5b75 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > 3) Let me put it another way, I've read that both Gavin and yourself are > favorable to a dynamic limit on the block size. In your view, what is > missing from this proposal, or what variables should be adjusted, to get > the rules to a place where you and other Core developers would seriously > consider it? > I'm not clear on what problem(s) you're trying to solve. If you want blocks to be at least 60% full, then just specify a simple rule like "maximum block size is 1.0/0.6 = 1.666 times the average block size over the last N blocks (applied at every block or every 2016 blocks or whatever, details don't really matter)". If you want an upper limit on growth, then just implement a simple rule like "Absolute maximum block size is 1 megabyte in 2016, 3.45 megabytes in 2017, and increases by a maximum of 3.45 times every year." If you want me to take your proposal seriously, you need to justify why 60% full is a good answer (and why we need a centralized decision on how full blocks "should" be), and why 3.45 times-per-year is a good answer for maximum growth (and, again, why we need a centralized decision on that). -- -- Gavin Andresen --001a11c2280c325b92051f3f5b75 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
3) Let me put it another w= ay, I've read that both Gavin and yourself are favorable to a dynamic l= imit on the block size. In your view, what is missing from this proposal, o= r what variables should be adjusted, to get the rules to a place where you = and other Core developers would seriously consider it?

I'm not clear on what problem(s) you're try= ing to solve.

If you want blocks to be at least 60= % full, then just specify a simple rule like "maximum block size is 1.= 0/0.6 =3D 1.666 times the average block size over the last N blocks (applie= d at every block or every 2016 blocks or whatever, details don't really= matter)".

If you want an upper limit on grow= th, then just implement a simple rule like "Absolute maximum block siz= e is 1 megabyte in 2016, 3.45 megabytes in 2017, and increases by a maximum= of 3.45 times every year."

=
If you want me to take your proposal seriously, you need to justify w= hy 60% full is a good answer (and why we need a centralized decision on how= full blocks "should" be), and why 3.45 times-per-year is a good = answer for maximum growth (and, again, why we need a centralized decision o= n that).

--
--
Gavin Andresen
--001a11c2280c325b92051f3f5b75--