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 1Yy2TP-0000uw-8Y for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 28 May 2015 18:24:07 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.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-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Yy2TO-0002Tq-Eh for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 28 May 2015 18:24:07 +0000 Received: by lbbqq2 with SMTP id qq2so33973291lbb.3 for ; Thu, 28 May 2015 11:24:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.239.133 with SMTP id vs5mr3989586lac.75.1432837440149; Thu, 28 May 2015 11:24:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.90.75 with HTTP; Thu, 28 May 2015 11:23:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator> Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 14:23:59 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134ce26a41e8c0517287652 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: 1Yy2TO-0002Tq-Eh 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 18:24:07 -0000 --001a1134ce26a41e8c0517287652 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > As noted, many miners just accept the defaults. With your proposed change >> their target would effectively *drop* from 1mb to 800kb today, which >> seems crazy. That's the exact opposite of what is needed right now. >> > > I am very skeptical about this idea. > By the time a hard fork can happen, I expect average block size will be above 500K. Would you support a rule that was "larger of 1MB or 2x average size" ? That is strictly better than the situation we're in today. -- -- Gavin Andresen --001a1134ce26a41e8c0517287652 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= hu, May 28, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrot= e:
As noted, many miners just accept the defaults. With you= r proposed change their target would effectively drop=C2=A0from 1mb = to 800kb today, which seems crazy. That's the exact opposite of what is= needed right now.

I am very skeptical about= this idea.

By the = time a hard fork can happen, I expect average block size will be above 500K= .

Would you support a rule that was "larger o= f 1MB or 2x average size" ? That is strictly better than the situation= we're in today.

--
--
Gavin Andresen
--001a1134ce26a41e8c0517287652--