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 7779A323 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:08:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE1E2149 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:08:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qk0-f178.google.com ([209.85.220.178]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MLhDB-1Z8wlY414d-000poE for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:08:00 +0200 Received: by qkhu186 with SMTP id u186so38999319qkh.0 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 07:07:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.40.214 with SMTP id o83mr99887064qko.106.1435241279245; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 07:07:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.96.28.39 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 07:07:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <0CAB4453-0C88-4CCB-86C1-DA192D4F77A1@gmail.com> References: <558A0B4A.7090205@riseup.net> <558A1E8E.30306@novauri.com> <0CAB4453-0C88-4CCB-86C1-DA192D4F77A1@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:07:59 +0200 Message-ID: From: Adam Back To: Gareth Williams Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:nXmtMRAqY/3bjoXjBR7dit+5RIUQBZClcbnOs8r9Y2C3qgwMojA wbo1XZo+wgun9AcQRZCnMHsiFcUJ2y3lf/knzeR+S+9Dp+uVQSxl7vMbQAQ9+iph5wEyX/w OyRXifM5ky2KlsUagB++ZzShIDgNM9lQLQgokhzCCqp3Yjm02rbPvPGjCDOFyWtFQAvEruV BuyyfYgxC8/eyMEyzJXpw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:MXUcdJ/4Ek8=:+L0H1A1loTtTaGGOZmXxSx hHZxBMDF1/P57/4vPKusxVvmMDgSRhKuX1Fn4CeC9rN5x0rrj8aaalAKZq33idFi33he6TBJ/ S/Q89YNI1rOydNGCPQCPFfgWkBbnrbFQQ6X/cvJRmgYVmqBpnXiiomrAvzOLL1fxsPKK2WqFt gKHEaqPK9KaK9yRvQHF3vYq6EdEIBDFiCoFiTQgYFSPZ9tNw2ptgevrIj9J00C6NLNuD/Mvs3 vc9/wgeRCEAGYB7UIw3VTmyil5lTrnr29uVmkJSIbgcYolMnclHN6BwD/JXqNbJPR8n4q7vKm v64sO/MsaTUHmF9+fWCfNVMGnRGXBz4L+WSyxEMfjuEYsfI3CQszmzB3dGrBp7a9cC5UAd68X g4PObHsH35A79qfi81B97H5LRbJMj4RjagxpRyirBv7+PX6lo/F7i80rm5W7V5EHs8WlAmX8y FfTJjMbh0f+HxPNKGq1+etFDL7yWpoWAPuG0749NSTn0I8ayH358zSRjtRshHP2E4HepAawN3 kk29MJsGeSak1CS2b3gdMpPrBvEFEzyaiDn4WX00sBpqtIkec0lnOxzPkHQ94Y/XlBqaQc/ma o5Co/8XnQq3gQz9WODe7fUzND02syYaPnMWP6bENDtGgHWz4Q/fjUvj/rdZyUeVZBRxJAUO4K ZfONjqMnE/6NcbbZpp8OP2zV11zm8ZE2eM66ES11WA7+wOg== X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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] Draft BIP : fixed-schedule block size increase 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: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:08:01 -0000 Note Jeff's proposal and Greg Maxwell's flexcap proposals also have a growth limiter as a hard-cap and a mechanism for influencing a dynamic cap within that envelope. The hard-cap serves the purpose of a safety limit in case our understanding about the economics, incentives or game-theory is wrong worst case. More comments to follow. Adam On 25 June 2015 at 15:50, Gareth Williams wrote: > On 24 June 2015 1:49:51 PM AEST, Jeff Garzik wrote: >>Miners can collude today to lower the block size limit. > > Of course they can. What, then, is the need for BIP100's hard-limit votin= g mechanism? > > You only need consensus rules to enforce block size limits if you're enfo= rcing them _against_ miners. Which may be a perfectly valid thing to do (if= your threat model includes, for example, the possibility that large miners= deliberately create large blocks to gain an advantage over small miners.) = But BIP100 doesn't address that anyway. > > Wouldn't it be safer for consensus to get behind Gavin's simpler 8MB->8GB= hard-limit growth curve*, and then encourage miners to enforce a soft limi= t below that, agreed through a voting mechanism? The later can be implement= ed at any time without consensus changes -- nobody can prevent miners from = coordinating the max block size they'll build on anyway. > > * but with a safer "supermajority" than 75% please :) > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev