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-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YzQFf-00009V-FU for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 13:59:39 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.217.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.180; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-lb0-f180.google.com; Received: from mail-lb0-f180.google.com ([209.85.217.180]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YzQFe-0003nN-Hy for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 13:59:39 +0000 Received: by lbbuc2 with SMTP id uc2so85054334lbb.2 for ; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 06:59:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.166.37 with SMTP id zd5mr20754694lbb.75.1433167172179; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 06:59:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.90.75 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 06:59:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <554BE0E1.5030001@bluematt.me> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 09:59:31 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c382d0339c6e0517753c95 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 0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1YzQFe-0003nN-Hy Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements 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: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 13:59:39 -0000 --001a11c382d0339c6e0517753c95 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com> wrote: > I cannot believe why Gavin (who seems to have difficulty to spell my > name correctly.) insists on his 20MB proposal regardless the > community. BIP66 has been introduced for a long time and no one knows > when the 95% goal can be met. This change to the block max size must > take one year or more to be adopted. We should increase the limit and > increase it now. 20MB is simply too big and too risky, sometimes we > need compromise and push things forward. I agree with any solution > lower than 10MB in its first two years. > > Thanks, that's useful! What do other people think? Would starting at a max of 8 or 4 get consensus? Scaling up a little less than Nielsen's Law of Internet Bandwidth predicts for the next 20 years? (I think predictability is REALLY important). I chose 20 because all of my testing shows it to be safe, and all of my back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate the costs are reasonable. If consensus is "8 because more than order-of-magnitude increases are scary" -- ok. -- -- Gavin Andresen --001a11c382d0339c6e0517753c95 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On M= on, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com> wr= ote:
I cannot believe why Gavin (who seem= s to have difficulty to spell my
name correctly.) insists on his 20MB proposal regardless the
community. BIP66 has been introduced for a long time and no one knows
when the 95% goal can be met. This change to the block max size must
take one year or more to be adopted. We should increase the limit and
increase it now. 20MB is simply too big and too risky, sometimes we
need compromise and push things forward. I agree with any solution
lower than 10MB in its first two years.


=
Thanks, that's useful!

What do other peop= le think?=C2=A0 Would starting at a max of 8 or 4 get consensus?=C2=A0 Scal= ing up a little less than Nielsen's Law of Internet Bandwidth predicts = for the next 20 years? =C2=A0(I think predictability is REALLY important).<= /div>

I chose 20 because all of my testing shows it to b= e safe, and all of my back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate the costs = are reasonable.

If consensus is "8 because mo= re than order-of-magnitude increases are scary" -- ok.

--
--
Gavin Andresen
--001a11c382d0339c6e0517753c95--