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-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <1240902@gmail.com>) id 1YzQOO-0006pG-NL for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:08:40 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.179 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.179; envelope-from=1240902@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f179.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YzQOJ-00041V-6s for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:08:40 +0000 Received: by wicmx19 with SMTP id mx19so76898195wic.0 for ; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 07:08:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.84.6 with SMTP id u6mr21380443wiy.87.1433167709198; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 07:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.208.69 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 07:08:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <554BE0E1.5030001@bluematt.me> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 22:08:29 +0800 Message-ID: From: Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com> To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) 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 (1240902[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (1240902[at]gmail.com) -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: 1YzQOJ-00041V-6s 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 14:08:40 -0000 That is good. I oppose 20MB because I estimate it may increase the overall orphan rate to an unacceptable level. 5MB, 8MB or probably 10MB should be ok. On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > 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