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 88411273 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 16:19:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wg0-f50.google.com (mail-wg0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37ADB19B for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 16:19:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wgjx7 with SMTP id x7so36770324wgj.2 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 09:19:05 -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=XFk/jzAWxlFHG9UF+aKk1E7k+AAxbkpl5aQw+rPCs+0=; b=LNgxwsUq5smZ3Yl7wsxttSf0/boHx9catWisqPQ3RF72GniKgXPwxudmtfRmmqpNsi LYyairbGqQFqSxSSzz4SBEfD2ktmKKJKqJtHMs/yOmqS1AycL0o1tAdeDmNdOeio0fgI 4vBnQ7yvtNmqZeNcjVk1tfE35KY8lx/IrA+bY53cwg+5OHVg9y0brwd27GkBF3S1pMb3 fncFoOvLc0MQtbvde0TvT3WlxunekjR2fI+O+vum13un5p60ShuE92vKekqVJ0tS+fEs MCEIC9X0JA6QRgeOSHfBF+koAcURh6Dg3BzudsQc9Ymzl7k27nGm+ujQluTCu293C16u LRnQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.75.15 with SMTP id y15mr6502945wiv.51.1435421944996; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 09:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.27.10.1 with HTTP; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 09:19:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1EF70EBC-8BB8-4A93-8591-52B2B0335F6C@petertodd.org> References: <1EF70EBC-8BB8-4A93-8591-52B2B0335F6C@petertodd.org> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:19:04 -0400 Message-ID: From: Michael Naber To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec54fb2c422672e0519823720 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] A Proposed Compromise to the Block Size Limit 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: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 16:19:07 -0000 --bcaec54fb2c422672e0519823720 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 That test seems like a reasonable suggestion; 840GB is not prohibitive given today's computing costs. What other than the successful result of that test would you want to see before agreeing to increase the block size to 8MB? On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > > > On 27 June 2015 10:39:51 GMT-04:00, Michael Naber > wrote: > >Compromise: Can we agree that raising the block size to a static 8MB > >now > >with a plan to increase it further should demand necessitate except in > >the > >special case above is a reasonable path forward? > > It's not a reasonable path forward right now given the lack of testing > done with 8MB+ blocks, among many other problems. A way to help make that > appear more reasonable would be to setup a 8MB testnet as I suggested, with > two years or so of 8MB blocks in history as well as a large UTXO set to > test performance characteristics. > > Of course, that'll be a 840GB download - if that's unreasonable you might > want to ask why 8MB blocks are reasonable... > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iQE9BAEBCAAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJVjr9n > AAoJEMCF8hzn9Lnc47AIAIIwu4maaJs4pAKpK00jQnhPNIQ8LPvijD/8vvyugA1z > OLxlRrn8zs7JPFbxWOAzK2qzT1RksSd0gbXqWm/Saqk9CAG5LBp7Oq0HAVE23XYt > 6BvyhjyhYaZjDrv+SZvlSjdl5xfpDNPMIXMi7XblKD9hm1GIUSVIYAOinOSVIy0B > HlKyn/xc4MaO8DuzQcs0vsNMudVQFLMOLjMWz/7iv41NnB/Ujjzv/6845Z1g7Opf > d5AfxhPHZixshqav/lF7ly7xQwSZZpoJCyFdtzCNG47EQmFYY9e22uy1KVzS7Zeo > qYPi3KRx5+vFtHHJMDYG5EIMTwI4l/4+lY/Sd0CFWss= > =0IOS > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --bcaec54fb2c422672e0519823720 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
That test seems like a reasonable suggestion; 840GB i= s not prohibitive given today's computing costs. What other than the su= ccessful result of that test would you want to see before agreeing to incre= ase the block size to 8MB?


On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Peter Todd <pete@p= etertodd.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNE= D MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256



On 27 June 2015 10:39:51 GMT-04:00, Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com> wrote:
>Compromise: Can we agree that raising the block size to a static 8MB >now
>with a plan to increase it further should demand necessitate except in<= br> >the
>special case above is a reasonable path forward?

It's not a reasonable path forward right now given the lack of t= esting done with 8MB+ blocks, among many other problems. A way to help make= that appear more reasonable would be to setup a 8MB testnet as I suggested= , with two years or so of 8MB blocks in history as well as a large UTXO set= to test performance characteristics.

Of course, that'll be a 840GB download - if that's unreasonable you= might want to ask why 8MB blocks are reasonable...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQE9BAEBCAAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJVjr9n
AAoJEMCF8hzn9Lnc47AIAIIwu4maaJs4pAKpK00jQnhPNIQ8LPvijD/8vvyugA1z
OLxlRrn8zs7JPFbxWOAzK2qzT1RksSd0gbXqWm/Saqk9CAG5LBp7Oq0HAVE23XYt
6BvyhjyhYaZjDrv+SZvlSjdl5xfpDNPMIXMi7XblKD9hm1GIUSVIYAOinOSVIy0B
HlKyn/xc4MaO8DuzQcs0vsNMudVQFLMOLjMWz/7iv41NnB/Ujjzv/6845Z1g7Opf
d5AfxhPHZixshqav/lF7ly7xQwSZZpoJCyFdtzCNG47EQmFYY9e22uy1KVzS7Zeo
qYPi3KRx5+vFtHHJMDYG5EIMTwI4l/4+lY/Sd0CFWss=3D
=3D0IOS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--bcaec54fb2c422672e0519823720--