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-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YqfJV-000259-2K for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 May 2015 10:15:25 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.46 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.46; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f46.google.com; Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YqfJS-0004XU-W4 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 May 2015 10:15:25 +0000 Received: by wgiu9 with SMTP id u9so68030500wgi.3 for ; Fri, 08 May 2015 03:15:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.105.193 with SMTP id go1mr4715471wib.92.1431080116921; Fri, 08 May 2015 03:15:16 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.143.9 with HTTP; Fri, 8 May 2015 03:15:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator> References: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator> Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 12:15:16 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: gd6tTkJkDZQcDwQjF5NZh59ryz8 Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Matt Whitlock Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0418280003b11605158f4ee5 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: 1YqfJS-0004XU-W4 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step function 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: Fri, 08 May 2015 10:15:25 -0000 --f46d0418280003b11605158f4ee5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 There are certainly arguments to be made for and against all of these proposals. The fixed 20mb cap isn't actually my proposal at all, it is from Gavin. I am supporting it because anything is better than nothing. Gavin originally proposed the block size be a function of time. That got dropped, I suppose to make the process of getting consensus easier. It is "the simplest thing that can possibly work". I would like to see the process of chain forking becoming less traumatic. I remember Gavin, Jeff and I once considered (on stage at a conference??) that maybe there should be a scheduled fork every year, so people know when to expect them. If everything goes well, I see no reason why 20mb would be the limit forever. --f46d0418280003b11605158f4ee5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There are certainly arguments to be made for and against a= ll of these proposals.

The fixed 20mb cap isn't actu= ally my proposal at all, it is from Gavin. I am supporting it because anyth= ing is better than nothing. Gavin originally proposed the block size be a f= unction of time. That got dropped, I suppose to make the process of getting= consensus easier. It is "the simplest thing that can possibly work&qu= ot;.

I would like to see the process of chain fork= ing becoming less traumatic. I remember Gavin, Jeff and I once considered (= on stage at a conference??) that maybe there should be a scheduled fork eve= ry year, so people know when to expect them.

If ev= erything goes well, I see no reason why 20mb would be the limit forever.
--f46d0418280003b11605158f4ee5--