📅 Original date posted:2015-05-31
📝 Original message:Linear growth is indeed the 'simplest' model for growth so removes
concerns of complexity using such a growth model. Seems like it might be
a safe compromise between exponential growth, zero growth and buys some
time to observe the longer term scale network behaviour.
A simple linear growth 'hard' technical limit could also be used
conjunction with the simple periodic soft dynamic limit adjustment (e.g.
1.5x of moving average) as discussed recently. So that the combination
provides for growth, with fee pressure, up until if/when the technical
hard limit is hit. And if we keep hitting the hard limit that signals a
market demand for ancillary layers to be built out, that has been
missing until now.
On Sun, 2015-05-31 at 01:05 +0300, Alex Mizrahi wrote:
>
>
> Why 2 MB ?
>
>
> Why 20 MB? Do you anticipate 20x transaction count growth in 2016?
>
>
> Why not grow it by 1 MB per year?
> This is a safer option, I don't think that anybody claims that 2 MB
> blocks will be a problem.
> And in 10 years when we get to 10 MB we'll get more evidence as to
> whether network can handle 10 MB blocks.
>
>
> So this might be a solution which would satisfy both sides:
> * people who are concerned about block size growth will have an
> opportunity to stop it before it grows too much (e.g. with a soft
> fork),
> * while people who want bigger blocks will get an equivalent of 25%
> per year growth within the first 10 years, which isn't bad, is it?
>
>
> So far I haven't heard any valid arguments against linear growth.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
gb [ARCHIVE] /
npub1j0…u0kje
2023-06-07 15:33:45
in reply to nevent1q…xx87
Author Public Key
npub1j0cee8lvw7v75c0vfsgfpt5xv8qmr3xzhlwpg9lestngmzwu0u9s6u0kjePublished at
2023-06-07 15:33:45Event JSON
{
"id": "79aa3afb57fb2ca3a99f5a99b65f86a977a4b2dded6446e006e3830bd868fb58",
"pubkey": "93f19c9fec7799ea61ec4c1090ae8661c1b1c4c2bfdc1417f982e68d89dc7f0b",
"created_at": 1686152025,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f8b5d67799444b0b408a010416662bfec521761783201657452331c18514fd28",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"65779032c331859404b38c5454c009cffe11a0082c73f8d17bb13107bb97ef6c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"83939e4391e74ab1f02f783131a30a24db681188b72b90da8bce3dcaa763c8b4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-05-31\n📝 Original message:Linear growth is indeed the 'simplest' model for growth so removes\nconcerns of complexity using such a growth model. Seems like it might be\na safe compromise between exponential growth, zero growth and buys some\ntime to observe the longer term scale network behaviour. \n\nA simple linear growth 'hard' technical limit could also be used\nconjunction with the simple periodic soft dynamic limit adjustment (e.g.\n1.5x of moving average) as discussed recently. So that the combination\nprovides for growth, with fee pressure, up until if/when the technical\nhard limit is hit. And if we keep hitting the hard limit that signals a\nmarket demand for ancillary layers to be built out, that has been\nmissing until now.\n\nOn Sun, 2015-05-31 at 01:05 +0300, Alex Mizrahi wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Why 2 MB ?\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Why 20 MB? Do you anticipate 20x transaction count growth in 2016?\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Why not grow it by 1 MB per year?\n\u003e This is a safer option, I don't think that anybody claims that 2 MB\n\u003e blocks will be a problem.\n\u003e And in 10 years when we get to 10 MB we'll get more evidence as to\n\u003e whether network can handle 10 MB blocks.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e So this might be a solution which would satisfy both sides:\n\u003e * people who are concerned about block size growth will have an\n\u003e opportunity to stop it before it grows too much (e.g. with a soft\n\u003e fork),\n\u003e * while people who want bigger blocks will get an equivalent of 25%\n\u003e per year growth within the first 10 years, which isn't bad, is it?\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e So far I haven't heard any valid arguments against linear growth.\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development",
"sig": "992b0e19609e0bbf0025f86df1e4fc2c83291df4c72f1d61264ebbc13c0f45c6e44d905937a2cf9729c9ed64f17559ccd22acef7f4de18f1645423447853e928"
}