From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YzU2E-0005fF-5h for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 18:02:02 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.172; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f172.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YzU2B-00044G-PC for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 18:02:02 +0000 Received: by wifw1 with SMTP id w1so115273898wif.0 for ; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 11:01:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.74.210 with SMTP id w18mr22986274wiv.77.1433181713732; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 11:01:53 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.143.9 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 11:01:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 20:01:53 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: pxRPj4qXo_lEfUxRzLljW4YgwhU Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Adam Back Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043749fbf21f670517789ecb X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1YzU2B-00044G-PC Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] soft-fork block size increase (extension blocks) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 18:02:02 -0000 --f46d043749fbf21f670517789ecb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > (at reduced security if it has software that doesnt understand it) Well, yes. Isn't that rather key to the issue? Whereas by simply increasing the block size, SPV wallets don't care (same security and protocol as before) and fully validating wallets can be updated with a very small code change. > A 1MB client wont even understand the difference between a 1MB and 8MB > out payment. Let's say an old client makes a payment that only gets confirmed in an extension block. The wallet will think the payment is unconfirmed and show that to the user forever, no? Can you walk through the UX for each case? > If I am not misremembering, I think you've sided typically > with the huge block, big data center only end of the spectrum. It would be Satoshi, that argued that. I think there must be a communication issue here somewhere. I'm not sure how this meme has taken hold amongst you guys, as I am the guy who wrote the scalability page back in 2011: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability It says: *The core Bitcoin network can scale to much higher transaction rates than are seen today, assuming that nodes in the network are primarily running on high end servers rather than desktops. * By "much higher rates" I meant VISA scale and by "high end server" I meant high end by today's standards not tomorrows. There's a big difference between a datacenter and a single server! By definition a single server is not a datacenter, although it would be conventional to place it in one. But even with the most wildly optimistic growth imaginable, I couldn't foresee a time when you needed more than a single machine to keep up with the transaction stream. And we're not going to get to VISA scale any time soon: I don't think I've ever argued we will. If it does happen it would presumably be decades away. Again, short of some currently unimagined killer app. So I don't believe I've ever argued this, and honestly I kinda feel people are putting words in my mouth. --f46d043749fbf21f670517789ecb Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
(at reduced security if it has software=C2=A0that doesnt under= stand it)

Well, yes. Isn't that rather= key to the issue?=C2=A0 Whereas by simply increasing the block size, SPV w= allets don't care (same security and protocol as before) and fully vali= dating wallets can be updated with a very small code change.
=C2= =A0
A 1MB client wont even understand the difference = between a 1MB and 8MB
out payment.=C2=A0

Let's say an old cli= ent makes a payment that only gets confirmed in an extension block. The wal= let will think the payment is unconfirmed and show that to the user forever= , no?
=C2=A0
Can you walk through the UX for each case?=
=C2=A0
If I am not misremembering, I think= you've sided typically
with the huge block, big data center only end of the spectrum.=C2=A0

It would be Satoshi, that argued that.

I think there must be a communication issue here somewhere.= I'm not sure how this meme has taken hold amongst you guys, as I am th= e guy who wrote the scalability page back in 2011:

https://en.bitcoin.it/w= iki/Scalability

It says:

The core Bitcoin network can scale to much highe= r transaction rates than are seen today, assuming that nodes in the network= are primarily running on high end servers rather than desktops.=C2=A0<= /span>

<= font color=3D"#252525" face=3D"sans-serif">By "much higher rates" I meant VISA scale and by &= quot;high end server" I meant high end by today's standards not to= morrows. There's a big difference between a datacenter and a single ser= ver!=C2=A0By definition a single server is not= a datacenter, although it would be conventional to place it in one. But=C2= =A0even with the most wildly optimistic growth imagin= able, I couldn't foresee a time when you needed more than a single mach= ine to keep up with the transaction stream.=C2=A0

And we're not goin= g to get to VISA scale any time soon: I don't think I've ever argue= d we will. If it does happen it would presumably be decades away. Again, sh= ort of some currently unimagined killer app.

So I don't belie= ve I've ever argued this, and honestly I kinda feel people are putting = words in my mouth.
--f46d043749fbf21f670517789ecb--