From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0909E8ED for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 21:19:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com (mail-ob0-f173.google.com [209.85.214.173]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D11511E for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 21:19:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obnw1 with SMTP id w1so87850988obn.3 for ; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 14:19:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=hUfLQdVpcl/7koCvLBaTwPK+U+wdFf96IiGT207eo98=; b=jloFbVrXYsk2RnRlr+YecXiE+rHyDry95vOzJeupwLfx7skMNudcZXJW7rzdNao1N1 7Aonx/7YrH6AWuNMHJUn07yEjzJO46AQSd8f74MZfv/5MfJV1rXMxU4WF2Q/K6R1rUay B6tyfUdso40thf+Ijb3Ammmr7GUKcmsM0ZYHwxqKSZ84rkE/tJdBjrvHvrHNN3BfZZwM 0P+9Qe6DaTI87+Cm56zE1mbK0Sct6bw76aanWmnneie8BSycMcakO//xT8UyJMTSXE28 o8hhSpVYE98bBEZikmVJ9XmGhCi77PpF6cERS7X0ykl011UvixGZiBhcAQibY9ws1l7n lAcg== X-Received: by 10.60.74.2 with SMTP id p2mr8580830oev.57.1438982367972; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 14:19:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.202.116.207 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 14:18:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Sergio Demian Lerner Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 18:18:48 -0300 Message-ID: To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11360288e19824051cbf303f X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: [bitcoin-dev] If you had a single chance to double the transactions/second Bitcoin allows... X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 21:19:29 -0000 --001a11360288e19824051cbf303f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 What would you do? a. Double the block size b. Reduce the block rate to a half (average 5 minute blocks) Suppose this is a one time hard fork. There no drastic technical problems with any of them: "SPV" mining and the relay network has shown that block propagation is not an issue for such as small change. Mining centralization won't radically change for a 2x adjustment. So what would be best for Bitcoin? I suspect some (if not most of you) would choose b. Because reducing the block interval saves us real time. Waiting 30 minutes for a 3-block confirmation is... such a long time! Time that we value. Time that sometimes we waste waiting. Time that makes a difference for us. Doubling the block size does not change the user perception of Bitcoin in any way. Then why most discussions go around doubling the block size? Each change require less than 20 lines of code (*) in the reference code, and minimum change in other wallets. Currently there is no idle mining hardware for hire, so the security of six 10-minute block confirmation is equivalent to the security of six 5-minute block confirmations, as described in Satoshi's paper (if there were 51% spare mining hardware for hire, then obviously hiring that hardware for 30 minutes would cost less than hiring it for 1 hour). Why we discuss a 2x block size increase and not a 1/2 block interval reduction? Aren't we Bitcoin users after all? Best regards, Sergio. (*) b requires increasing the transaction version number, to support the old nLockTime rate. --001a11360288e19824051cbf303f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What would you do?

a. Double the block = size
b. Reduce the block rate to a half (average 5 minute blocks)=

Suppose this is a one time hard fork. There = no drastic technical problems with any of them: "SPV" mining and = the relay network has shown that block propagation is not an issue for such= as small change. Mining centralization won't radically change for a 2x= adjustment.=C2=A0

So what would be best for Bitco= in?

I suspect some (if not most of you) woul= d choose b. Because reducing the block interval saves us real time. Waiting= 30 minutes for a 3-block confirmation is... such a long time! Time that we= value. Time that sometimes we waste waiting. Time that makes a difference = for us. Doubling the block size does not change the user perception of Bitc= oin in any way.

Then why most discussions go aroun= d doubling the block size?

Each change re= quire less than 20 lines of code (*) in the reference code, and minimum cha= nge in other wallets.=C2=A0

Currently there is no = idle mining hardware for hire, so the security of six 10-minute block confi= rmation is equivalent to the security of six 5-minute block confirmations, = as described in Satoshi's paper (if there were 51% spare mining hardwar= e for hire, then obviously hiring that hardware for 30 minutes would cost l= ess than hiring it for 1 hour).

Why we discu= ss a 2x block size increase and not a 1/2 block interval reduction? Aren= 9;t we Bitcoin users after all?

Best regards,
=C2=A0Sergio.

(*) b requires increasing the = transaction version number, to support the old nLockTime rate.


--001a11360288e19824051cbf303f--