📅 Original date posted:2015-05-28
📝 Original message:My understanding, which is very likely wrong in one way or another, is
transaction size and block size are two slightly different things but
perhaps it's so negligible that block size is a fine stand-in for total
transaction throughput.
Potentially Doubling the block size everyday is frankly imprudent. The
logarithmic increases in difficulty, which were often closer to 10% or 20%
every 2016 blocks was and is plenty fast, potentially changing blocksize by
twice daily is the mentality I would expect from a startup with the move
fast break things motto.
Infrastructure takes time, not everyone wants to run a node on a virtual
amazon instance, provisioning additional hard drive and bandwidth can't
happen overnight and trying to plan when block size from one week to the
next is a total mystery would be extremely difficult.
Anyone who has spent time examining the mining difficulty increases and
trajectory knows future planning is very very hard, allowing block size to
double daily would make it impossible.
Perhaps a middle way would be 300% increase every 2016 blocks, that will
scale to 20mbs within a month or two
The problem is logarithmic increases seem slow until they seem fast. If the
network begins to grow and block size hits 20, then the next day 40, 80...
Small nodes could get swamped within a week or less.
As for your point about Christmas, Bitcoin is a global network, Christmas,
while widely celebrated, isn't the only holiday, and planning around
American buying habits seems short sighted and no different from developers
trying to choose what the right fee pressure is.
On May 28, 2015 1:22 PM, "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Steven Pine <steven.pine at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> I would support a dynamic block size increase as outlined. I have a few
questions though.
>>
>> Is scaling by average block size the best and easiest method, why not
scale by transactions confirmed instead? Anyone can write and relay a
transaction, and those are what we want to scale for, why not measure it
directly?
>
>
> What do you mean? Transactions aren't confirmed until they're in a
block...
>
>>
>> I would prefer changes every 2016 blocks, it is a well known change and
a reasonable time period for planning on changes. Two weeks is plenty fast,
especially at a 50% rate increase, in a few months the block size could be
dramatically larger.
>
>
> What type of planning do you imagine is necessary?
>
> And have you looked at transaction volumes for credit-card payment
networks around Christmas?
>
>>
>> Daily change to size seems confusing especially considering that max
block size will be dipping up and down. Also if something breaks trying to
fix it in a day seems problematic. The hard fork database size difference
error comes to mind. Finally daily 50% increases could quickly crowd out
smaller nodes if changes happen too quickly to adapt for.
>
> The bottleneck is transaction volume; blocks won't get bigger unless
there are fee-paying transactions around to pay them. What scenario are you
imagining where transaction volume increases by 50% a day for a sustained
period of time?
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150528/6daaf026/attachment.html>;
Steven Pine [ARCHIVE] /
npub17t…kadm9
2023-06-07 15:34:12
in reply to nevent1q…3jut
Author Public Key
npub17t0q8zqty0mzjuk6t6jul40zvszs0jwds0kkxy3d8x5xef60073sckadm9Published at
2023-06-07 15:34:12Event JSON
{
"id": "594cd7702525b985623056d1227a7a7baf56477b060709f4e99aba7e5f6030e3",
"pubkey": "f2de03880b23f62972da5ea5cfd5e2640507c9cd83ed63122d39a86ca74f7fa3",
"created_at": 1686152052,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"aec396df7693e37c124fbd2891fe6c4a3b28f46e7fbc3f304a7b1d78d2f5ffbe",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"89b2ecfb1b69990c1fd2548fe9135fac50a7d05e26560eff3feac7fb086a28cd",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2de03880b23f62972da5ea5cfd5e2640507c9cd83ed63122d39a86ca74f7fa3"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-05-28\n📝 Original message:My understanding, which is very likely wrong in one way or another, is\ntransaction size and block size are two slightly different things but\nperhaps it's so negligible that block size is a fine stand-in for total\ntransaction throughput.\n\nPotentially Doubling the block size everyday is frankly imprudent. The\nlogarithmic increases in difficulty, which were often closer to 10% or 20%\nevery 2016 blocks was and is plenty fast, potentially changing blocksize by\ntwice daily is the mentality I would expect from a startup with the move\nfast break things motto.\n\nInfrastructure takes time, not everyone wants to run a node on a virtual\namazon instance, provisioning additional hard drive and bandwidth can't\nhappen overnight and trying to plan when block size from one week to the\nnext is a total mystery would be extremely difficult.\n\nAnyone who has spent time examining the mining difficulty increases and\ntrajectory knows future planning is very very hard, allowing block size to\ndouble daily would make it impossible.\n\nPerhaps a middle way would be 300% increase every 2016 blocks, that will\nscale to 20mbs within a month or two\n\nThe problem is logarithmic increases seem slow until they seem fast. If the\nnetwork begins to grow and block size hits 20, then the next day 40, 80...\nSmall nodes could get swamped within a week or less.\n\nAs for your point about Christmas, Bitcoin is a global network, Christmas,\nwhile widely celebrated, isn't the only holiday, and planning around\nAmerican buying habits seems short sighted and no different from developers\ntrying to choose what the right fee pressure is.\n\nOn May 28, 2015 1:22 PM, \"Gavin Andresen\" \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Steven Pine \u003csteven.pine at gmail.com\u003e\nwrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I would support a dynamic block size increase as outlined. I have a few\nquestions though.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Is scaling by average block size the best and easiest method, why not\nscale by transactions confirmed instead? Anyone can write and relay a\ntransaction, and those are what we want to scale for, why not measure it\ndirectly?\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e What do you mean? Transactions aren't confirmed until they're in a\nblock...\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I would prefer changes every 2016 blocks, it is a well known change and\na reasonable time period for planning on changes. Two weeks is plenty fast,\nespecially at a 50% rate increase, in a few months the block size could be\ndramatically larger.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e What type of planning do you imagine is necessary?\n\u003e\n\u003e And have you looked at transaction volumes for credit-card payment\nnetworks around Christmas?\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Daily change to size seems confusing especially considering that max\nblock size will be dipping up and down. Also if something breaks trying to\nfix it in a day seems problematic. The hard fork database size difference\nerror comes to mind. Finally daily 50% increases could quickly crowd out\nsmaller nodes if changes happen too quickly to adapt for.\n\u003e\n\u003e The bottleneck is transaction volume; blocks won't get bigger unless\nthere are fee-paying transactions around to pay them. What scenario are you\nimagining where transaction volume increases by 50% a day for a sustained\nperiod of time?\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e --\n\u003e Gavin Andresen\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150528/6daaf026/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "e20a1a6bba5d5fb7f5b6dea7fc8b1f7d743b0be39eebdaa53673961f8cd1de65dc10c368909d5f06dedeae7f81e3dcd238e2c06dd99f011fe5dba56d87870186"
}