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 BC3634D3 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 06:04:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f172.google.com (mail-ig0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 787AB147 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 06:03:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igbij6 with SMTP id ij6so84257661igb.1 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 23:03:59 -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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=ViP/GlwBY50vl7nJLvPc01EiAPgh2xeeVdkPWLaY88E=; b=CIfsk9URbHL9eUW0V2/QjhaiXf2t1XiNJIQjJBTiarVJ27kGCgVzJFuKFoHxxvx5Q2 b7o+Tpx7AuAC5FDaeWpdspbZA58uWLcrfSJNhKvyjKSBHfuRqnhAXRafQOFSom8YBpQT oRYpXzF1dYmGgymMNqOblzUJ/QMPojg0ULnaWILGgNeyD92ZhcfWKD3SvjL3rTUj5IN3 2M+GjSUKW9WKYBc6cvrTGe8+I8XxfARjT0p9eNXpSkcvNy6/N9Si4SLcGIxESbDuez58 4jS6cw+ssBN8/4kM21qL4fJcw5EFPfbXeHK2xsXwM8N1tSoCef4kdV1Sr1CPToE0IWY4 nukg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkWpwjGSN5TY6Xtu+GB0twfa+UEriBaj5PT+l/qr0YpkYnp9RS42/1x68Y/gKWCxKmo1KWd X-Received: by 10.50.112.229 with SMTP id it5mr16879428igb.46.1439273038966; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 23:03:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.158.140 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 23:03:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [50.0.37.37] In-Reply-To: <2547793.e4fEoOQyIR@coldstorage> References: <1472719.PaoH0O6gJe@coldstorage> <2547793.e4fEoOQyIR@coldstorage> From: Mark Friedenbach Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 23:03:39 -0700 Message-ID: To: Thomas Zander Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0118417e390eaa051d02ded9 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process 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, 11 Aug 2015 06:04:00 -0000 --089e0118417e390eaa051d02ded9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > So, while LN is written, rolled out and tested, we need to respond with > bigger > blocks. 8Mb - 8Gb sounds good to me. > This is where things diverge. It's fine to pick a new limit or growth trajectory. But defend it with data and reasoned analysis. Can you at least understand the conservative position here? "1MB sounds good to me" is how we got into this mess. We must make sure that we avoid making the same mistakes again, creating more or worse problems then we are solving. --089e0118417e390eaa051d02ded9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoi= n-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
So, while LN is written, rolled out and tested, w= e need to respond with bigger
blocks.=C2=A0 8Mb - 8Gb sounds good to me.

=
This is where things diverge. It's fine to p= ick a new limit or growth trajectory. But defend it with data and reasoned = analysis.

Can you at least understa= nd the conservative position here? "1MB sounds good to me" is how= we got into this mess. We must make sure that we avoid making the same mis= takes again, creating more or worse problems then we are solving.


--089e0118417e390eaa051d02ded9--