📅 Original date posted:2015-06-01
📝 Original message:The current max block size of 1000000 bytes is not power of two anyway.
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Oliver Egginger <bitcoin at olivere.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
>> What do other people think? Would starting at a max of 8 or 4 get
>> consensus? Scaling up a little less than Nielsen's Law of Internet
>> Bandwidth predicts for the next 20 years? (I think predictability is
>> REALLY important).
>>
>> I chose 20 because all of my testing shows it to be safe, and all of my
>> back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate the costs are reasonable.
>>
>> If consensus is "8 because more than order-of-magnitude increases are
>> scary" -- ok.
>
> It would feel better for me if you would keep the power of two:
>
> 2^0 = 1MB
> 2^1 = 2MB
> 2^2 = 4MB
> 2^3 = 8MB
> .
> .
> .
>
> But that's only personal. Maybe other people feeling the same.
>
> - oliver
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Chun Wang [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ed…mqjxc
2023-06-07 15:36:06
in reply to nevent1q…gsvn
Author Public Key
npub1edz8qyleqfqddckyjs0erkqysv2n76fwatw32nehpm5k7gertf4shmqjxcPublished at
2023-06-07 15:36:06Event JSON
{
"id": "d031eabf329bfe2502ef8577daac2f6b1e230be48fce4fd74f17750c4898fed9",
"pubkey": "cb447013f90240d6e2c4941f91d80483153f692eeadd154f370ee96f23235a6b",
"created_at": 1686152166,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"112d0de527f63b466f07e709b55d1d4965f1c304d12170877aafb66f5cb05c67",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"08c3e1e1af35c3fede59115957a48d605d9726d1e8caca233793126447ad72d8",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3a8398eaf86054cebf4533f474e00bf3a274ddb71a6dbb99b3f83bc835acdf30"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-01\n📝 Original message:The current max block size of 1000000 bytes is not power of two anyway.\n\nOn Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Oliver Egginger \u003cbitcoin at olivere.de\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:\n\u003e\u003e What do other people think? Would starting at a max of 8 or 4 get\n\u003e\u003e consensus? Scaling up a little less than Nielsen's Law of Internet\n\u003e\u003e Bandwidth predicts for the next 20 years? (I think predictability is\n\u003e\u003e REALLY important).\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I chose 20 because all of my testing shows it to be safe, and all of my\n\u003e\u003e back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate the costs are reasonable.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e If consensus is \"8 because more than order-of-magnitude increases are\n\u003e\u003e scary\" -- ok.\n\u003e\n\u003e It would feel better for me if you would keep the power of two:\n\u003e\n\u003e 2^0 = 1MB\n\u003e 2^1 = 2MB\n\u003e 2^2 = 4MB\n\u003e 2^3 = 8MB\n\u003e .\n\u003e .\n\u003e .\n\u003e\n\u003e But that's only personal. Maybe other people feeling the same.\n\u003e\n\u003e - oliver\n\u003e\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": "87666cd6f29d0a3cf74e3ada9774b1fcb00ed5e5ab7e2aa67b46032a5844619a1ede10693e185710e3539254915b9984386ff3276b6a7acdc7429f33bc6b3c9a"
}