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-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Yy1TE-0005Ch-2R for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 28 May 2015 17:19:52 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.41; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f41.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f41.google.com ([209.85.215.41]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Yy1TC-0000lO-Ry for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 28 May 2015 17:19:52 +0000 Received: by laat2 with SMTP id t2so37274759laa.1 for ; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:19:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.5.134 with SMTP id s6mr3701813las.99.1432833584324; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:19:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.90.75 with HTTP; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:19:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator> Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 13:19:44 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d1010d0e48905172790a2 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: 1Yy1TC-0000lO-Ry Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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: Thu, 28 May 2015 17:19:52 -0000 --089e013d1010d0e48905172790a2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > Isn't that a step backwards, then? I see no reason for fee pressure to >> exist at the moment. All it's doing is turning away users for no purpose: >> mining isn't supported by fees, and the tiny fees we use right now seem to >> be good enough to stop penny flooding. >> > > Why not set the max size to be 20x the average size? Why 2x, given you > just pointed out that'd result in blocks shrinking rather than growing. > Twenty is scary. And two is a very neutral number: if 50% of hashpower want the max size to grow as fast as possible and 50% are dead-set opposed to any increase in max size, then half produce blocks 2 times as big, half produce empty blocks, and the max size doesn't change. If it was 20, then a small minority of miners could force a max size increase. (if it is less than 2, then a minority of minors can force the block size down) As for whether there "should" be fee pressure now or not: I have no opinion, besides "we should make block propagation faster so there is no technical reason for miners to produce tiny blocks." I don't think us developers should be deciding things like whether or not fees are too high, too low, ..... -- -- Gavin Andresen --089e013d1010d0e48905172790a2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= hu, May 28, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrot= e:
Isn't = that a step backwards, then? I see no reason for fee pressure to exist at t= he moment. All it's doing is turning away users for no purpose: mining = isn't supported by fees, and the tiny fees we use right now seem to be = good enough to stop penny flooding.

Why not set the max size to be 20x the average size? W= hy 2x, given you just pointed out that'd result in blocks shrinking rat= her than growing.

Twenty is scary.
And two is a very neutral number: if 50% = of hashpower want the max size to grow as fast as possible and 50% are dead= -set opposed to any increase in max size, then half produce blocks 2 times = as big, half produce empty blocks, and the max size doesn't change. If = it was 20, then a small minority of miners could force a max size increase.= =C2=A0(if it is less than 2, then a minority of minors can force the block= size down)


As for whether there "should" be fee pressure now or not: = I have no opinion, besides "we should make block propagation faster so= there is no technical reason for miners to produce tiny blocks." I do= n't think us developers should be deciding things like whether or not f= ees are too high, too low, .....

--
--
Gavin Andresen
--089e013d1010d0e48905172790a2--