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 25ABB8E6 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 15:26:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f178.google.com (mail-ig0-f178.google.com [209.85.213.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92690169 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 15:26:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igbpg9 with SMTP id pg9so13776086igb.0 for ; Thu, 06 Aug 2015 08:26:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=vM51bwQKAvRw71brbYC06eZQTsfyW4/pkvu8/E4nZv0=; b=IUt+rXX+/zKjhgc7jzpd+Jr//PGXBtSGdcB9zGxg/Gri3e8vB06R3Xn0I742pFwnQj 0o+fTe67u35Zj+RpQm1NU5b39ay4tjV0/NzI5sTJWCLUV65gFl0R0qeOF6dnamd8dmH0 lZe37va65B+x11bNDs3sGtlG/WuO0/yczxNQk+Pgddsv7SKZ9wkiu9zoDIEcVDopCQvs a4k+OGZd5tzy/CrYTMOrJ5KeumG/zh/OUPN1dakU8XpkMdfU8fCFJ6kn7oxNtsFHt+NY n0jhr1umgt5Zdukt3aUYnllgis9FBumRKM5qQM3Se/0Paczgrgyzn2tK+PzgX/t0ne5/ TBLQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.93.69 with SMTP id cs5mr1780150igb.4.1438874772049; Thu, 06 Aug 2015 08:26:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.77.201 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 08:26:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 17:26:11 +0200 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01537ed8aa168e051ca6237c X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,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] Fwd: Block size following technological growth 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: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 15:26:13 -0000 --089e01537ed8aa168e051ca6237c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Pieter Wuille > wrote: > >> So if we would have 8 MB blocks, and there is a sudden influx of users >> (or settlement systems, who serve much more users) who want to pay high >> fees (let's say 20 transactions per second) making the block chain >> inaccessible for low fee transactions, and unreliable for medium fee >> transactions (for any value of low, medium, and high), would you be ok with >> that? > > > Yes, that's fine. If the network cannot handle the transaction volume that > people want to pay for, then the marginal transactions are priced out. That > is true today (otherwise ChangeTip would be operating on-blockchain), and > will be true forever. > The network can "handle" any size. I believe that if a majority of miners forms SPV mining agreements, then they are no longer affected by the block size, and benefit from making their blocks slow to validate for others (as long as the fee is negligable compared to the subsidy). I'll try to find the time to implement that in my simulator. Some hardware for full nodes will always be able to validate and index the chain, so nobody needs to run a pesky full node anymore and they can just use a web API to validate payments. Being able the "handle" a particular rate is not a boolean question. It's a question of how much security, centralization, and risk for systemic error we're willing to tolerate. These are not things you can just observe, so let's keep talking about the risks, and find a solution that we agree on. > >> If so, why is 8 MB good but 1 MB not? To me, they're a small constant >> factor that does not fundamentally improve the scale of the system. > > > "better is better" -- I applaud efforts to fundamentally improve the > scalability of the system, but I am an old, cranky, pragmatic engineer who > has seen that successful companies tackle problems that arise and are > willing to deploy not-so-perfect solutions if they help whatever short-term > problem they're facing. > I don't believe there is a short-term problem. If there is one now, there will be one too at 8 MB blocks (or whatever actual size blocks are produced). > > >> I dislike the outlook of "being forever locked at the same scale" while >> technology evolves, so my proposal tries to address that part. It >> intentionally does not try to improve a small factor, because I don't think >> it is valuable. > > > I think consensus is against you on that point. > Maybe. But I believe that it is essential to not take unnecessary risks, and find a non-controversial solution. -- Pieter --089e01537ed8aa168e051ca6237c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Ga= vin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 a= t 10:53 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wr= ote:
So if we would have 8 MB blocks, and there is a sudden influx of users (or settlement systems, who serve much more users) who want to pay high=20 fees (let's say 20 transactions per second) making the block chain=20 inaccessible for low fee transactions, and unreliable for medium fee=20 transactions (for any value of low, medium, and high), would you be ok=20 with that?

Yes, that's fine. If= =20 the network cannot handle the transaction volume that people want to pay for, then the marginal transactions are priced out. That is true today=20 (otherwise ChangeTip would be operating on-blockchain), and will be true forever.

Th= e network can "handle" any size. I believe that if a majority of m= iners=20 forms SPV mining agreements, then they are no longer affected by the=20 block size, and benefit from making their blocks slow to validate for=20 others (as long as the fee is negligable compared to the subsidy). I'll= =20 try to find the time to implement that in my simulator. Some hardware=20 for full nodes will always be able to validate and index the chain, so=20 nobody needs to run a pesky full node anymore and they can just use a=20 web API to validate payments.

Being able the "handle= " a particular rate is not a boolean question. It's a question of how much= =20 security, centralization, and risk for systemic error we're willing to= =20 tolerate. These are not things you can just observe, so let's keep=20 talking about the risks, and find a solution that we agree on.

=C2=A0
If so, why is 8 MB good but 1 MB not? To me, they're a small constant= =20 factor that does not fundamentally improve the scale of the system.

"better is better" -- I applaud efforts to fundamentally improve the=20 scalability of the system, but I am an old, cranky, pragmatic engineer=20 who has seen that successful companies tackle problems that arise and=20 are willing to deploy not-so-perfect solutions if they help whatever=20 short-term problem they're facing.
=

I don't believe there is a short-term problem. If there is one now, ther= e will be one too at 8 MB blocks (or whatever actual size blocks are=20 produced).
=C2=A0
=C2=A0
I dislike the outlook of "being forever locked at the same scale"= ; while technology evolves, so my proposal tries to address that part. It=20 intentionally does not try to improve a small factor, because I don't= =20 think it is valuable.

I think consensus is aga= inst you on that point.

= Maybe. But I believe that it is essential to not take unnecessary risks, an= d find a non-controversial solution.

--
Pieter
--089e01537ed8aa168e051ca6237c--