📅 Original date posted:2015-08-04
📝 Original message:On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Hector Chu <hectorchu at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike's position is that he wants the block size limit to eventually be
> removed. That is of course an extreme view.
I prefer to wait and let him talk by himself.
> Meanwhile, your view that the
> block size should be artificially constrained below the organic growth curve
> (in a way that will penalize a majority of existing and future users) lies
> at the other extreme.
That is not my position. Again, I don't know what the right blocksize
for the short term is (I don't think anybody does).
But I know that the maximum block size limit consensus rule (no more
artificial than any other consensus rule, like, say, the one that
prohibits double-spends) serves to limit mining centralization.
Therefore how the change can affect mining centralization must be the
main concern, instead of (also artificial) projections about usage
growth (no matter how organic their curves look).
Also I don't think "hitting the limit" must be necessarily harmful and
if it is, I don't understand why hitting it at 1MB will be more
harmful than hitting it at 2MB, 8MB or 8GB.
> The majority position lies somewhere in between (i.e.
> a one-time increase to 8MB). This is the position that ultimately matters.
I don't know where you get your "majority" from or what it even means
(majority of users, majority of the coins, of miners?)
But there's something I'm missing something there...why my position
doesn't matter if it's not a majority?
How is what the the majority has been told it's best an objective argument?
> If the block size is increased to 8MB and things get demonstrably a whole
> lot worse, then you will have a solid leg to stand on. In that case we can
> always do another hard fork later to reduce the block size back to something
> smaller, and henceforth the block size will never be touched again.
Yes.
And if we can "break things" in simulations first before we "break
things" in production, maybe we don't need the later hardfork to "fix
things" (if it's still possible to fix them without completely
restarting the ASIC market).
The fact is that we don't have a single simulation that can tell you
"too centralized/shouldn't affect mining centralization much" for a
given block size.
So if you say 8, I must ask, why not 9?
Why 9 MB is not safe for mining centralization but 8 MB is?
There is NO criterion based on mining centralization to decide between
2 sizes in favor of the small one.
It seems like the rationale it's always "the bigger the better" and
the only limitation is what a few people concerned with mining
centralization (while they still have time to discuss this) are
willing to accept. If that's the case, then there won't be effectively
any limit in the long term and Bitcoin will probably fail in its
decentralization goals.
I think its the proponents of a blocksize change who should propose
such a criterion and now they have the tools to simulate different
block sizes.
I want us to simulate many blocksizes before rushing into a decision
(specially because I disagree that taking a decision there is urgent
in the first place).
Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx…cl2d8
2023-06-07 17:32:29
in reply to nevent1q…q4ea
Author Public Key
npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8Published at
2023-06-07 17:32:29Event JSON
{
"id": "5e9ae0478c6cfc9aaaa4569ebf97b39b8553ed1813f37a1f2b49fba088b9cfaa",
"pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84",
"created_at": 1686159149,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"4e8415b0ac5f4356e0ce0ebf2c3f4ee3b61a33a2b0c1bc226931c06144bfe5a4",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4ca8ba1405b4f840ec18ed782f058dfe7f886d2aace007de9214fe7eb30877fc",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"959a9c23e3a17ee9df362d7f12c50fbdefd93d94208519d2110bc65e3e9ed411"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-04\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Hector Chu \u003chectorchu at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Mike's position is that he wants the block size limit to eventually be\n\u003e removed. That is of course an extreme view.\n\nI prefer to wait and let him talk by himself.\n\n\u003e Meanwhile, your view that the\n\u003e block size should be artificially constrained below the organic growth curve\n\u003e (in a way that will penalize a majority of existing and future users) lies\n\u003e at the other extreme.\n\nThat is not my position. Again, I don't know what the right blocksize\nfor the short term is (I don't think anybody does).\nBut I know that the maximum block size limit consensus rule (no more\nartificial than any other consensus rule, like, say, the one that\nprohibits double-spends) serves to limit mining centralization.\nTherefore how the change can affect mining centralization must be the\nmain concern, instead of (also artificial) projections about usage\ngrowth (no matter how organic their curves look).\nAlso I don't think \"hitting the limit\" must be necessarily harmful and\nif it is, I don't understand why hitting it at 1MB will be more\nharmful than hitting it at 2MB, 8MB or 8GB.\n\n\u003e The majority position lies somewhere in between (i.e.\n\u003e a one-time increase to 8MB). This is the position that ultimately matters.\n\nI don't know where you get your \"majority\" from or what it even means\n(majority of users, majority of the coins, of miners?)\nBut there's something I'm missing something there...why my position\ndoesn't matter if it's not a majority?\nHow is what the the majority has been told it's best an objective argument?\n\n\u003e If the block size is increased to 8MB and things get demonstrably a whole\n\u003e lot worse, then you will have a solid leg to stand on. In that case we can\n\u003e always do another hard fork later to reduce the block size back to something\n\u003e smaller, and henceforth the block size will never be touched again.\n\nYes.\nAnd if we can \"break things\" in simulations first before we \"break\nthings\" in production, maybe we don't need the later hardfork to \"fix\nthings\" (if it's still possible to fix them without completely\nrestarting the ASIC market).\nThe fact is that we don't have a single simulation that can tell you\n\"too centralized/shouldn't affect mining centralization much\" for a\ngiven block size.\nSo if you say 8, I must ask, why not 9?\nWhy 9 MB is not safe for mining centralization but 8 MB is?\n\nThere is NO criterion based on mining centralization to decide between\n2 sizes in favor of the small one.\nIt seems like the rationale it's always \"the bigger the better\" and\nthe only limitation is what a few people concerned with mining\ncentralization (while they still have time to discuss this) are\nwilling to accept. If that's the case, then there won't be effectively\nany limit in the long term and Bitcoin will probably fail in its\ndecentralization goals.\nI think its the proponents of a blocksize change who should propose\nsuch a criterion and now they have the tools to simulate different\nblock sizes.\n\nI want us to simulate many blocksizes before rushing into a decision\n(specially because I disagree that taking a decision there is urgent\nin the first place).",
"sig": "b811c9abedc2e33ff373bdc9ca6f8c6672156d821a04bcd44fdaff6d554b211044ce6f59388c88c12de68da95c5024bb835c37bc741c5f022a4045449ad9bbdf"
}