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 58D648D7 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 14:53:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f182.google.com (mail-io0-f182.google.com [209.85.223.182]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5E98EB for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 14:53:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iodb91 with SMTP id b91so23530219iod.1 for ; Thu, 06 Aug 2015 07:53:29 -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=mLm0vxkxsi/DCq6ve3Ak0WXGshEZsNnn/rVHAr3FTeM=; b=TgDVN6M03GMVAUwA+Z0/QeXsSKDqXfoYQe04bY7PksMR8GS3lxv9gpA1hS+d6iUHWK A8RCngFzCi28eKgLOXW4T+pkP5/4SCUKJRwj1GBa/aa/g0C8kLcMKdleO1AeUXwj6yNq Yk1T3tqkdNGL+roCgmupez7Ei0x3F3OyfAEDrxHMOZ+dWdLDQxWnmKelUvDoKRryHnPa Zc8ME4feS4h44Jn/gkXXGv7Bj2Xx4qjvaI9Ks2pwfkyBYUfR8OLKquypEb5x4MP4xjpi 18TOWmRFFMe/LsQEHBwjo69xKvSzzSrwUi0H4ecFS6ox4ZzFVTAHTE60q7XaVtVj8IbV EUmg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.9.137 with SMTP id 9mr2639286ioj.50.1438872809248; Thu, 06 Aug 2015 07:53:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.77.201 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 07:53:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 16:53:29 +0200 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f8f14ac1ec4051ca5ae86 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] 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 14:53:30 -0000 --001a113f8f14ac1ec4051ca5ae86 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Pieter Wuille > wrote: > >> But you seem to consider that a bad thing. Maybe saying that you're >> claiming that this equals Bitcoin failing is an exaggeration, but you do >> believe that evolving towards an ecosystem where there is competition for >> block space is a bad thing, right? >> > > No, competition for block space is good. > 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? 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. 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. What is bad is artificially limiting or centrally controlling the supply of > that space. > It's exactly as centrally limited as the finite supply of BTC - by consensus. You and I may agree that a finite supply is a good thing, and may disagree about whether a consensus rule about the block size is a good idea (and if so, at what level), but it's a choice we make as a community about the rules of the system we want to use. -- Pieter --001a113f8f14ac1ec4051ca5ae86 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Gavin Andresen <g= avinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
=

What is bad is artificially limiting or centrally cont= rolling the supply of that space.

It's exactly as centrally limited as the finite supply of BTC = - by consensus. You and I may agree that a finite supply is a good thing, a= nd may disagree about whether a consensus rule about the block size is a go= od idea (and if so, at what level), but it's a choice we make as a comm= unity about the rules of the system we want to use.

--
Pieter

--001a113f8f14ac1ec4051ca5ae86--