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 F37762C for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:34:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qt0-f179.google.com (mail-qt0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 882D1249 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:34:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f179.google.com with SMTP id w20so86388243qtb.1 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:34:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=blockstream-io.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=V++YOYsv/qHpdzsYAPANzttK+EU8L5mDliNnN0qaJ2o=; b=Zuda9bLBPEp5QI3hdfRdQ28WkcXyiPAls8FFszZxx5rMFEvFJt+sh7Fpf1UqZ0ig5c tu3Akyu+YoCCOweaI2H+rJ0hN+xWMeyBLoFwAa4TcLeZIcWdOwCyQWP/o/IWvMQPgfvy ZZkd205cm/cAW/hgUbtMWsw85q+XwpF2/C0v0zokH+F/v8AEKTFGfF19DWDh+ZO7NSRX UQdWdQ2gG0mV2l51WhO/TEsRoBShxLBWg7KVgXo4xhMd74Q9YelIGPoq6bj2bn00vUy+ OzTvD5csSVURD5b/dQzF/2paUBd4CtRKUcAFBeG4IZzOBR44qB54Dcaw/KR/A5oNmrlV 4NSg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=V++YOYsv/qHpdzsYAPANzttK+EU8L5mDliNnN0qaJ2o=; b=KJ77PLmjj0V0m7jbN8BV//V3TLHzEjLvVlwSZdqiSZAzU44+of3azKTX+NympMT8LP 1pNtkYT5Vt6IHQAa3sLcxcWVxHxLtmHMBZWkAOs7lZYciW1+eKWYDMiNoJRt9urWwzXQ xAAmEaOBNuDqfPylcfu7yBNQJfeggMcMGZfZuGjo6D1mtGzd/PQHPvOeBiaVzVDEtomk 3kGK8lxu861L9fGW9mqIwdCHBBaFzwlN/zU6ZpsMkcwhgyi8TgiCIvZ4DVk+mCzu2n8V zSBqqA3O9k+Ro/L3JVe0cs65EbwunzQrHu/y3rL5AiJDF79401mgcJ7tP8W3mQ8Ab34n bgpg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLGpod8WCo8NR/yA3X3RR/hFi+kJ0Lqfeb9AdERPjuI1AvidxPXomagrfARqb/1MaRRelk6QNJcS1//Mjxe X-Received: by 10.200.42.227 with SMTP id c32mr9634339qta.70.1485549254619; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:34:14 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.130.67 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:34:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.12.130.67 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:34:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <201701270107.01092.luke@dashjr.org> <201701270414.18553.luke@dashjr.org> From: "Russell O'Connor" Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 15:34:13 -0500 Message-ID: To: Andrew Johnson , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11404b3a9e4b1b0547196307 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Three hardfork-related BIPs X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:34:18 -0000 --001a11404b3a9e4b1b0547196307 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Jan 27, 2017 03:03, "Andrew Johnson via bitcoin-dev" wrote: Other researchers have come to the conservative conclusion that we could handle 4MB blocks today. I believe this is a mischaracterization of the research conclusions. The actual conclusion was that the maximum value for the blocksize that the network can safely handle (at that time) is some value that is (conservatively) no more than 4MB. This is because the research only studies one aspect of the effect of blocksize on the network at a time and the true safe value is the minimum of all aspects. For example, the 4MB doesn't cover the aspect of quadratic hashing for large transactions in large blocks. --001a11404b3a9e4b1b0547196307 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Jan 27, 2017 03:03, "Andrew Johnson via bitcoin-d= ev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

Other researchers have = come to the conservative conclusion that we could handle 4MB blocks today.<= /div>

I believe this is a mischaracterization of the research conclusions.= =C2=A0 The actual conclusion was that the maximum value for the blocksize t= hat the network can safely handle (at that time) is some value that is (con= servatively) no more than 4MB.=C2=A0 This is because the research only stud= ies one aspect of the effect of blocksize on the network at a time and the = true safe value is the minimum of all aspects.=C2=A0 For example, the 4MB d= oesn't cover the aspect of quadratic hashing for large transactions in = large blocks.
--001a11404b3a9e4b1b0547196307--