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 8B57B8DD for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 15:25:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lb0-f169.google.com (mail-lb0-f169.google.com [209.85.217.169]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA94A168 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 15:25:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lbbtg9 with SMTP id tg9so7036403lbb.1 for ; Thu, 06 Aug 2015 08:24:59 -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 :content-type; bh=Olk01hg3oSLVJe3DVBZvi4asUYPZkbze2m6fZrO6js0=; b=Do1chewuS21rXDSjSuRT5+ra3I2svqnT6f9/ywmyQSY3+PA7jr9/4xSA1E6aKe4Dw7 yMtDT7j1ZMqPE2/M9l44ZSjAbyOIKOSCckO0ku7s9arOLnrsOScBPoTaXOttT/q7P5Y0 GqguFoan1C3BLk2Xl58i6B0YUGPsoAs3jiZAxXKGSfUJ31v5p+gR3+2Li3ZJPzqwb48X QZHRQ67L+5ssmEMTAFVIfY4s5fPrrcBjlKIiylQ7J4pyKKX6rQr7ajMJIvVJmX1pI61u CjWs7ybYGRg5EWo0QBDP9Q/uoV4J1OTIbeiS14RC61Ru1QjYPMIZ/Mb7jo4EM5jptA4C a4Eg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.139.131 with SMTP id qy3mr2629372lbb.4.1438874699020; Thu, 06 Aug 2015 08:24:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.143.195 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 08:24:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 11:24:58 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c33ffa4fc0ef051ca61f17 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 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: 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: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 15:25:01 -0000 --001a11c33ffa4fc0ef051ca61f17 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > So if we would have 8 MB blocks, and there is a sudden influx of users (or > settlement systems, who serve much more users) who want to pay high fees > (let's say 20 transactions per second) making the block chain inaccessible > for low fee transactions, and unreliable for medium fee transactions (for > any value of low, medium, and high), would you be ok with that? Yes, that's fine. If the network cannot handle the transaction volume that people want to pay for, then the marginal transactions are priced out. That is true today (otherwise ChangeTip would be operating on-blockchain), and will be true forever. > If so, why is 8 MB good but 1 MB not? To me, they're a small constant > factor that does not fundamentally improve the scale of the system. "better is better" -- I applaud efforts to fundamentally improve the scalability of the system, but I am an old, cranky, pragmatic engineer who has seen that successful companies tackle problems that arise and are willing to deploy not-so-perfect solutions if they help whatever short-term problem they're facing. > I dislike the outlook of "being forever locked at the same scale" while > technology evolves, so my proposal tries to address that part. It > intentionally does not try to improve a small factor, because I don't think > it is valuable. I think consensus is against you on that point. -- -- Gavin Andresen --001a11c33ffa4fc0ef051ca61f17 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Aug 6, 201= 5 at 10:53 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>= wrote:
So if we would have 8 MB blocks, = and there is a sudden influx of users (or settlement systems, who serve muc= h more users) who want to pay high fees (let's say 20 transactions per = second) making the block chain inaccessible for low fee transactions, and u= nreliable for medium fee transactions (for any value of low, medium, and hi= gh), would you be ok with that?

Yes,= that's fine. If the network cannot handle the transaction volume that = people want to pay for, then the marginal transactions are priced out. That= is true today (otherwise ChangeTip would be operating on-blockchain), and = will be true forever.
=C2=A0
If so, why is 8 MB good but 1 MB not? To me, they're = a small constant factor that does not fundamentally improve the scale of th= e system.

"better is better&quo= t; -- I applaud efforts to fundamentally improve the scalability of the sys= tem, but I am an old, cranky, pragmatic engineer who has seen that successf= ul companies tackle problems that arise and are willing to deploy not-so-pe= rfect solutions if they help whatever short-term problem they're facing= .
=C2=A0
I = dislike the outlook of "being forever locked at the same scale" w= hile technology evolves, so my proposal tries to address that part. It inte= ntionally does not try to improve a small factor, because I don't think= it is valuable.

I think consensus is against = you on that point.

--
--
Gavin Andresen

--001a11c33ffa4fc0ef051ca61f17--