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 7E160BD4 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:59:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com (mail-ob0-f182.google.com [209.85.214.182]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46BEE7C for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:59:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obbop1 with SMTP id op1so14102857obb.2 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:59:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Nikr1vEQTl360y3/qsmAd5G+jg9XV0CDAlCtNoHZ6Rg=; b=CLsn8zZ6qgIjjFex9Sis0WV86RkswSYRQh1+j81D9QgHsYrqUfHP6PAQDi1OYQg223 qIQ6ZXFZ8XDyHb9SQDTN5WImXjquToJJmYGshY0fBEB2RHVH4YCdZHoC4b6PadY5DO++ JaAXF+KXUXKl85Lx8aLg9XPnn1Vj6hD9eQnmAytgb2szrrPW62IftR9Vv87mtTB5IYd1 pLe9VLIQjc+MrnPlxY7EsseJ3YeBPns5z1QD/TBCuN03HeSm5OPPERBS6NJSLoYvEzdH DI5hYpE8tGPb/OE7EGthEgY2zBaibsjvygLuNR6bBIuh8JJ4fIk61IooG2pgeRIxu9wP ig4g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm44ollPRtXH5TMACuUDMB7qCpJ52Fo1soPk7rXXOzQLb7Y45r1D+LHiiy+T5R9dgb7Ls6L MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.246.9 with SMTP id xs9mr18719786obc.45.1435694363620; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:59:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.135.8 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:59:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5592C0A3.8050008@mail.bihthai.net> <20150630162526.GA8479@savin.petertodd.org> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:59:23 -0700 Message-ID: From: Bryan Cheng To: Michael Naber Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c306ee8ccf500519c1a4a6 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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] Block size increase oppositionists: please clearly define what you need done to increase block size to a static 8MB, and help do it 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: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:59:25 -0000 --001a11c306ee8ccf500519c1a4a6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 One thing that seems to have been forgotten is that the 1MB block size does not represent any particular rigorous design choice; it is purely arbitrary. It does not represent any type of technical sweet-spot; it neither falls under any reasonable MTU to prevent TCP fragmentation, nor does it guarantee in any unique way ease of transmission or lower latency. Chinese mining pool operators, noted as one of the more constrained stakeholders in this decision, have indicated that 8MB is a reasonable compromise in their situation. Unless individuals with specific, concrete use cases come forward with exactly how they will be marginalized by blocks in the 1-8MB range, we should consider 8MB the minimum applicable size for technical objections to raising the block size from a network propagation point of view. It also does not represent any kind of economic sweet spot. If we accept the arguments on the mailing list that economic incentives for the creation of the fee market depend entirely on a single variable, the scarcity of space for transactions in a block, we should be talking about _decreasing_ the block size. In reality, this is clearly laughable. The real economic analysis would consist of a balance between the space for transactions in a block, the number of transactions being attempted at any given time, and the block subsidy, among many other factors. Viewing it in this light, the chance that 1MB by some divine miracle is the perfect balance of those economic considerations becomes exceedingly small. (Personally, I believe that increasing the block size has a greater chance of creating a fee market after coinbase subsidies decline, as having competition for space in a block depends not only on the number of transactions that fit in the block, but also the number of people attempting to spend; if success rates fall dramatically, significantly fewer people will attempt to transact bitcoin. However, this is a discussion for another post). If we stop considering 1MB to be some magic number, perhaps we can enter into a real discussion about finding what the right sweet spot is. We very well may decide that 1MB is _too big_; what should not be acceptable is conflating pressures to decrease the block size with reasons for inaction altogether. The end game of this debate should be to decide the new block size that balances, within reason, the various pressures in every direction. On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Michael Naber wrote: > Re: Why bother doubling capacity? So that we could have 2x more network > participants of course. > > Re: No clear way to scaling beyond that: Computers are getting more > capable aren't they? We'll increase capacity along with hardware. > > It's a good thing to scale the network if technology permits it. How can > you argue with that? > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:15:31PM +0700, Venzen Khaosan wrote: >> > > Do what's best for Bitcoin and define what needs to get done to >> > > agree to a simple block size increase to a static 8MB. >> > >> > And this then leads back to the core issue: if an 8MB blocksize >> > excludes many on this list from testnet, then the proposed 8MB blocks >> > will exclude a lot of mainnet participants (miners) and degrade the >> > quality of diversity and decentralization. >> > >> > How about testing at double the capacity: 2MB? >> >> Which of course raises another issue: if that was the plan, then all you >> can do is double capacity, with no clear way to scaling beyond that. >> Why bother? >> >> -- >> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org >> 00000000000000001599522de3e8ed28f0189ddccfa1d6db5eb380cacffc79d7 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --001a11c306ee8ccf500519c1a4a6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
One thing that seems to have been forgotten is that the 1M= B block size does not represent any particular rigorous design choice; it i= s purely arbitrary.

It does not represent any type of te= chnical sweet-spot; it neither falls under any reasonable MTU to prevent TC= P fragmentation, nor does it guarantee in any unique way ease of transmissi= on or lower latency. Chinese mining pool operators, noted as one of the mor= e constrained stakeholders in this decision, have indicated that 8MB is a r= easonable compromise in their situation. Unless individuals with specific, = concrete use cases come forward with exactly how they will be marginalized = by blocks in the 1-8MB range, we should consider 8MB the minimum applicable= size for technical objections to raising the block size from a network pro= pagation point of view.=C2=A0

It also does not rep= resent any kind of economic sweet spot. If we accept the arguments on the m= ailing list that economic incentives for the creation of the fee market dep= end entirely on a single variable, the scarcity of space for transactions i= n a block, we should be talking about _decreasing_ the block size. In reali= ty, this is clearly laughable. The real economic analysis would consist of = a balance between the space for transactions in a block, the number of tran= sactions being attempted at any given time, and the block subsidy, among ma= ny other factors. Viewing it in this light, the chance that 1MB by some div= ine miracle is the perfect balance of those economic considerations becomes= exceedingly small.=C2=A0

(Personally, I believe t= hat increasing the block size has a greater chance of creating a fee market= after coinbase subsidies decline, as having competition for space in a blo= ck depends not only on the number of transactions that fit in the block, bu= t also the number of people attempting to spend; if success rates fall dram= atically, significantly fewer people will attempt to transact bitcoin. Howe= ver, this is a discussion for another post).

If we= stop considering 1MB to be some magic number, perhaps we can enter into a = real discussion about finding what the right sweet spot is. We very well ma= y decide that 1MB is _too big_; what should not be acceptable is conflating= pressures to decrease the block size with reasons for inaction altogether.= The end game of this debate should be to decide the new block size that ba= lances, within reason, the various pressures in every direction.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 a= t 9:35 AM, Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Re: Why bother doubling capa= city? So that we could have 2x more network participants of course.
Re: No clear way to scaling beyond that: Computers are getting = more capable aren't they? We'll increase capacity along with hardwa= re.

It's a good thing to scale the network if = technology permits it. How can you argue with that?


On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org&= gt; wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:15:3= 1PM +0700, Venzen Khaosan wrote:
> > Do what's best for Bitcoin and define what needs to get done = to
> > agree to a simple block size increase to a static 8MB.
>
> And this then leads back to the core issue: if an 8MB blocksize
> excludes many on this list from testnet, then the proposed 8MB blocks<= br> > will exclude a lot of mainnet participants (miners) and degrade the > quality of diversity and decentralization.
>
> How about testing at double the capacity: 2MB?

Which of course raises another issue: if that was the plan, then all= you
can do is double capacity, with no clear way to scaling beyond that.
Why bother?

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000001599522de3e8ed28f0189ddccfa1d6db5eb380cacffc79d7


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--001a11c306ee8ccf500519c1a4a6--