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 02A1A268 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:29:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f174.google.com (mail-io0-f174.google.com [209.85.223.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B06D4112 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:29:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iodd187 with SMTP id d187so51741806iod.2 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 05:29:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=J6qvpHYcwXp0wTxj3Tndn0LcHQmw7o1xNxEGQIqhbaM=; b=EYkeEn0Uizf8PCBRdrpGorCyenggLVsUDoySy6dIP9/cfKqzILiIjtQHbibLlkJ0fR HLzpej70MriVATtG9HeoBXLWxdvikMyw/sH8lwvNAkYCUVYjizlJ7BJj1ZpE1VdkedrI PQp3tcpyIkNJcwO+/mjbBzG98LTGdF8ZpVfEjh+2aIDpSVuRirtYhd0xXWZtgQztnNBn MddJ8TwcWY2p7LHcuXPlNr7lFkQjC6d3QKiuNFSASMI9RXfbtdMOtwYm7/0FwUnY1dag BtI4MPYe4zJ8HNQBmI8kXW46e4jnY1GvMi7TRaAEuH7xJTcBr1ACKOoEWYgeSkbrIfJr PwwA== X-Received: by 10.107.160.197 with SMTP id j188mr10547051ioe.194.1438259393151; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 05:29:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2600:1000:b127:d7ee:cda6:168:4e5:51c5? ([2600:1000:b127:d7ee:cda6:168:4e5:51c5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h41sm533764ioi.12.2015.07.30.05.29.50 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Jul 2015 05:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Gavin X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12F70) In-Reply-To: <74767203-7F7A-4848-9923-DE1DE60A28B4@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 08:29:49 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com> <37D282C2-EF9C-4B8B-91E8-7D613B381824@phauna.org> <55B94FAD.7040205@mail.bihthai.net> <74767203-7F7A-4848-9923-DE1DE60A28B4@gmail.com> To: Eric Lombrozo X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE, 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] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn't temporary 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, 30 Jul 2015 12:29:54 -0000 > On Jul 30, 2015, at 4:21 AM, Eric Lombrozo wrote: >=20 > and a number of the people most intimately familiar with the inner working= s of the system (some of whom are in this thread) think that given what we n= ow today about the Bitcoin network, increasing block size externalizes costs= in dangerous ways. Remember that total cost includes not just equipment cos= ts but also things like block propagation latency and specifically identifie= d security risks. Some of these security risks were only appreciated relativ= ely recently and were completely unknown in 2009. I would like (and have been asking) those people to take the time to quantif= y those costs and write up those risks in a careful way. I believe the costs and risks of 8MB blocks are minimal, and that the benefi= ts of supporting more transaction FAR outweigh those costs and risks, but it= is hard to have a rational conversation about that when even simple questio= ns like 'what is s reasonable cost to run a full node' are met with silence.=