📅 Original date posted:2015-07-30
📝 Original message:On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Some things are not included yet, such as a testnet whose size runs ahead
> of the main chain, and the inclusion of Gavin's more accurate sigop
> checking after the hard fork.
>
> Comments?
>
First, THANK YOU for making a concrete proposal!
Specific comments:
So we'd get to 2MB blocks in the year 2021. I think that is much too
conservative, and the most likely effect of being that conservative is that
the main blockchain becomes a settlement network, affordable only for
large-value transactions.
I don't think your proposal strikes the right balance between
centralization of payments (a future where only people running payment
hubs, big merchants, exchanges, and wallet providers settle on the
blockchain) and centralization of mining.
I'll comment on using median time generally in Jorge's thread, but why does
monotonically increasing matter for max block size? I can't think of a
reason why a max block size of X bytes in block N followed by a max size of
X-something bytes in block N+1 would cause any problems.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150730/f7208138/attachment.html>;
Gavin Andresen [ARCHIVE] /
npub1s4…d44kw
2023-06-07 15:44:16
in reply to nevent1q…jxtd
Author Public Key
npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwPublished at
2023-06-07 15:44:16Event JSON
{
"id": "5a4ba20fb4ed10dfe31b24dbcc36d5ca8034e21aa492867c5fd74e42be9ecf20",
"pubkey": "857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4",
"created_at": 1686152656,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a5089d8cc94280b0825961adbe16d28b69a12ea3db4d49196026224a1cf60689",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"156ac1e9377b559f6b8b171f9a140c57afd433f1c782cec3a551e603933ba89a",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1c61d995949cbfaf14f767784e166bde865c7b8783d7aa3bf0a1d014b70c0069"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-07-30\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e Some things are not included yet, such as a testnet whose size runs ahead\n\u003e of the main chain, and the inclusion of Gavin's more accurate sigop\n\u003e checking after the hard fork.\n\u003e\n\u003e Comments?\n\u003e\n\nFirst, THANK YOU for making a concrete proposal!\n\nSpecific comments:\n\nSo we'd get to 2MB blocks in the year 2021. I think that is much too\nconservative, and the most likely effect of being that conservative is that\nthe main blockchain becomes a settlement network, affordable only for\nlarge-value transactions.\n\nI don't think your proposal strikes the right balance between\ncentralization of payments (a future where only people running payment\nhubs, big merchants, exchanges, and wallet providers settle on the\nblockchain) and centralization of mining.\n\n\n\nI'll comment on using median time generally in Jorge's thread, but why does\nmonotonically increasing matter for max block size? I can't think of a\nreason why a max block size of X bytes in block N followed by a max size of\nX-something bytes in block N+1 would cause any problems.\n\n-- \n--\nGavin Andresen\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150730/f7208138/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "26db5720c3a5ff3aa3b0bf55fd14a0cddda36207b709b4f6d8506c38e4ec3e52d5710d3a2b8e36571d14e131ea88834ef507edd7294ea97d99f22afb22e0a50d"
}