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 A62D6AF3 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 16:35:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com [209.85.212.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFCED1EF for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 16:35:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicgi11 with SMTP id gi11so22125331wic.0 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:35:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Sa5b9lOGXPRjzvB3ZZURvY6gYbIgBniw3k/bLmL3S3c=; b=eWBlCyeaWN/bcg/lKB1c7rUBCcat5hsrV6yxCHajScVu0PNn0ZmJYxYAErpMtOFP43 4W7lMZd4yXOKTTV3NhCcf7QhCFEDKAE6r2IPFpxdwfFqz6KURRAMRlUqNPigOF5uH2aj zue5hB0wyRNlem0G0cPsN1znT+iCC1sCcI4b5rcqQfaemAHO5PyPc1VRa8K8TgqbX8zA ro9t7lAdrD1bOh4vVEpMj9VloBxCUUvhWOonCzh3YvXfcJkDCy2Hman7ikRtlWM1cqqA GdBynZdx4xZkMzAAFxxuRw+OqnpxLQnRaE/8/o4kN0u4VBvg6WAVyP5Ftz328zyj06gm mpJw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.95.35 with SMTP id dh3mr34873284wib.30.1435682112575; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:35:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.27.10.1 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:35:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150630162526.GA8479@savin.petertodd.org> References: <5592C0A3.8050008@mail.bihthai.net> <20150630162526.GA8479@savin.petertodd.org> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:35:12 -0400 Message-ID: From: Michael Naber To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04447e1d549c990519becaa2 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size increase oppositionists: please clearly define what you need done to increase block size to a static 8MB, and help do it 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: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 16:35:14 -0000 --f46d04447e1d549c990519becaa2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Re: Why bother doubling capacity? So that we could have 2x more network participants of course. Re: No clear way to scaling beyond that: Computers are getting more capable aren't they? We'll increase capacity along with hardware. It's a good thing to scale the network if technology permits it. How can you argue with that? On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:15:31PM +0700, Venzen Khaosan wrote: > > > Do what's best for Bitcoin and define what needs to get done to > > > agree to a simple block size increase to a static 8MB. > > > > And this then leads back to the core issue: if an 8MB blocksize > > excludes many on this list from testnet, then the proposed 8MB blocks > > will exclude a lot of mainnet participants (miners) and degrade the > > quality of diversity and decentralization. > > > > How about testing at double the capacity: 2MB? > > Which of course raises another issue: if that was the plan, then all you > can do is double capacity, with no clear way to scaling beyond that. > Why bother? > > -- > 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > 00000000000000001599522de3e8ed28f0189ddccfa1d6db5eb380cacffc79d7 > --f46d04447e1d549c990519becaa2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Re: Why bother doubling capacity? So that we could have 2x= more network participants of course.

Re: No clear way t= o scaling beyond that: Computers are getting more capable aren't they? = We'll increase capacity along with hardware.

I= t's a good thing to scale the network if technology permits it. How can= you argue with that?


On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Pe= ter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
= On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:15:31PM +0700, Venzen Khaosan w= rote:
> > Do what's best for Bitcoin and define what needs to get done = to
> > agree to a simple block size increase to a static 8MB.
>
> And this then leads back to the core issue: if an 8MB blocksize
> excludes many on this list from testnet, then the proposed 8MB blocks<= br> > will exclude a lot of mainnet participants (miners) and degrade the > quality of diversity and decentralization.
>
> How about testing at double the capacity: 2MB?

Which of course raises another issue: if that was the plan, then all= you
can do is double capacity, with no clear way to scaling beyond that.
Why bother?

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000001599522de3e8ed28f0189ddccfa1d6db5eb380cacffc79d7

--f46d04447e1d549c990519becaa2--