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-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YyStf-0002bc-Lc for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 29 May 2015 22:36:59 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.44; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f44.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com ([209.85.215.44]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YySte-0006j5-68 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 29 May 2015 22:36:59 +0000 Received: by labko7 with SMTP id ko7so62288744lab.2 for ; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:36:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.50.74 with SMTP id a10mr10188768lbo.4.1432939011815; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:36:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.90.75 with HTTP; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:36:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <554BE0E1.5030001@bluematt.me> References: <554BE0E1.5030001@bluematt.me> Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 18:36:51 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Matt Corallo Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133bb46c8c08e0517401cb9 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: 1YySte-0006j5-68 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 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: Fri, 29 May 2015 22:36:59 -0000 --001a1133bb46c8c08e0517401cb9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Matt brought this up on Twitter, I have no idea why I didn't respond weeks ago (busy writing blog posts, probably): On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Matt Corallo wrote: > > > * Though there are many proposals floating around which could > significantly decrease block propagation latency, none of them are > implemented today. If block propagation isn't fixed, then mines have a strong incentive to create smaller blocks. So the max block size is irrelevant, it won't get hit. > In addition, I'd expect to > see analysis of how these systems perform in the worst-case, not just > packet-loss-wise, but in the face of miners attempting to break the system. > See http://gavinandresen.ninja/are-bigger-blocks-better-for-bigger-miners for analysis of "but that means bigger miners can get an advantage" argument. Executive summary: if little miners are stupid and produce huge blocks, then yes, big miners have an advantage. But they're not, so they won't. Until the block reward goes away, and assuming transaction fees become an important source of revenue for miners. I think it is too early to worry about that; see: http://gavinandresen.ninja/when-the-block-reward-goes-away > * I'd very much like to see someone working on better scaling > technology, both in terms of development and in terms of getting > traction in the marketplace. Ok. What does this have to do with the max block size? Are you arguing that work won't happen if the max block size increases? * I'd like to see some better conclusions to the discussion around > long-term incentives within the system. Again, see http://gavinandresen.ninja/when-the-block-reward-goes-away for what I think about that. -- -- Gavin Andresen --001a1133bb46c8c08e0517401cb9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Matt brought this up on Twitter, I have no idea why I didn= 't respond weeks ago (busy writing blog posts, probably):

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:02= PM, Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me> wrote:


=C2=A0* Though there are many proposals floating around which could
significantly decrease block propagation latency, none of them are
implemented today.

If block propagation isn= 't fixed, then mines have a strong incentive to create smaller blocks.<= /div>

So the max block size is irrelevant, it won't = get hit.
=C2=A0
In addition, I'd e= xpect to
see analysis of how these systems perform in the worst-case, not just
packet-loss-wise, but in the face of miners attempting to break the system.=

See=C2=A0http://gavinandresen.n= inja/are-bigger-blocks-better-for-bigger-miners for analysis of "b= ut that means bigger miners can get an advantage" argument.
=
Executive summary: if little miners are stupid and produce h= uge blocks, then yes, big miners have an advantage.

But they're not, so they won't.

Until th= e block reward goes away, and assuming transaction fees become an important= source of revenue for miners.
I think it is too early to worry a= bout that; see:

=C2=A0
=C2=A0* I'd very much like to see someone working on better scaling
technology, both in terms of development and in terms of getting
traction in the marketplace.

Ok. What does= this have to do with the max block size?

Are you = arguing that work won't happen if the max block size increases?

=C2=A0 * I'd like to see some better conclusions to t= he discussion around
long-term incentives within the system.

Aga= in, see=C2=A0http://gavinandresen.ninja/when-the-block-reward-goes-away for= what I think about that.

--
--
Gavin Andresen
--001a1133bb46c8c08e0517401cb9--