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 08E441020 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:47:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.196]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A76B4E5 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:47:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io0-f180.google.com ([209.85.223.180]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Mg6RH-1ZFLiw3r6b-00NU4N for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:47:23 +0200 Received: by ioiz6 with SMTP id z6so104214991ioi.2 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:47:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.158.18 with SMTP id h18mr6094062ioe.116.1441990043032; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:47:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.132.195 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:47:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:47:22 -0400 Message-ID: From: Adam Back To: Marcel Jamin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:u0jDBM+sF+eLYuvL6vb04I2CucQ6Ct3uYifK8IiiEbgWv+CQYlc K6unq8oueUsa6s9r0M6Sy0cw83aj/L1buIKNlGD5cVaUuaNfynHU8KkHbcIvNq2kqP1fbGq PUp58sGdrM8mBJvX+7BYPa/AnFHoJv9ZLnA6xp8KQGLto9Kcnt+7qcwnxowZNLrkEDTVVko f+bpkp78F3Hqlj1lXTwWQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:5sSTyftUSPo=:DcYn3eGlGBKeLq2YlAckzF HRRFlS/F18f5jqK9KNPWJxLS2Q2PwOtD9CYcmr9kyZPsMndCGIkgkrdk4xRsgDMlxrwtmHJlv pfK3XpWulI6BBIQ2xYbR6umaZINhosF3OM4ochIRAQRFpVK2BHqWP2UojRYnmoNEqHAwXG1iM e8Itfxv+hUai0E+fQLEpXw47Hk7cUrHyxnxcKpMzObTMbOGG2qufK/0zzMZFVxGfpwkHEcT5k GBbEelNRHZLVU1JTtFna4W+05bm+263SO9aefh1QuLBgAL/TgvtQ53qGdizvFMPdViGh1L73f AMZTx3EwVkhW6PhGdb6a9W6MzWX4XXJEOfIGb1y9ivAI63XDqQNppOpjIfZkcUSFW16+xcXkK 1Rf30fKyrBFcVI2UvayqS0GlbSeQs5YmUA+upNjlNuIKV/nCFkdIccgE/YyDUaIoov39BjwL4 70RLyZBV6H7uP2RQVgDILm1/thMDh1PMMPebqMYZ7+ejfuTmfhguGxvv8WEAatFEOle1p9A0K U/Pcgy7rkuqPJFeQBYCt8I7yq9B1uX3UvtzQvMvJeSS2pPTMev79b44Qm9oGuYIWqO61cRdHs JIw3d3fLYQ2xnULbrViSan8GEBNjdouH+Qz3V38WV2fYP7Nr6ifKh5FOrNSSJrdFQmmjjW7og Mjbtvmeg8czvVjwC+Oa75ZsRp55DSQAjllCQ+hCg1WWNlKGARpmkK5f9hr493iT/uty/XOTD3 eQuSATlTABBnGxZH X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, URIBL_BLACK autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Yet another blocklimit proposal / compromise 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, 11 Sep 2015 16:47:25 -0000 Bitcoin security depends on the enforcement of consensus rules which is done by economically dependent full nodes. This is distinct from miners fullnodes, and balances miners interests, otherwise SPV nodes and decentralisation of policy would tend degrade, I think. Therefore it is important that it be reasonably convenient to run full nodes for decentralisation security. Also you may want to read this summary of Bitcoin decentralisation by Mark: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h7eei/greg_luke_adam_if_xt_takes= _over_and_wins_the/cu53eq3 I think you maybe misunderstanding what the Chinese miners said also, about 8MB, that was a cap on the maximum they felt they could handle with current network infrastructure. I had proposed 2-4-8MB growing over a 4 year time frame with 2MB once the hard-fork is upgraded by everyone in the network. (I dont consider miner triggers, as with soft-fork upgrades, to be an appropriate roll out mechanism because it is more important that economically dependent full nodes upgrade, though it can be useful to know that miners also have upgraded to a reasonable extent to avoid a temporary hashrate drop off affecting security). Adam On 9 September 2015 at 15:00, Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I think the overlap of people who want to run a serious mining operation = and > people who are unable to afford a slightly above average internet connect= ion > is infinitesimally small. > > 2015-09-09 20:51 GMT+02:00 Jorge Tim=C3=B3n : >> >> >> On Sep 9, 2015 8:36 PM, "Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev" >> wrote: >> > >> > I propose to: >> > >> > a) assess what blocklimit is currently technically possible without >> > driving up costs of running a node up too much. Most systems currently >> > running a fullnode probably have some capacity left. >> >> What about the risk of further increasing mining centralization? > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >