š
Original date posted:2015-06-23
š Original message:On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:26:38PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Wladimir noted that 'The original presented intention of block size
> >> increase was a one-time "scaling" to grant time for more decentralizing
> >> solutions to develop'
> >>
> >> Comments?
> >>
> >
> > Consensus is that this process is too painful to go through once a year.
> > I agree.
> >
>
> If you believe we will need to go through this process once a year, we are
> not talking about a one-time scaling to grant time for more decentralizing
> solutions. It means you think we should keep scaling. I don't disagree
> there - as long as we're talking about scaling as availability of
> bandwidth, storage and processing power increase, there is no reason
> Bitcoin's blockchain can't grow proportionally.
>
> However, an initial bump 8 MB and the growth rate afterwards seem more like
> a no-effectively-limit-ever to me.
In particular, note how this bump is being proposed at a time when
blockchain space demand is so low that transactions usually cost well
under a penny each, a insignificant amount of money for almost all
use-cases.
> I fear that the wish of not wanting to deal with - admittedly - a very hard
> problem, resulted here in throwing away several protections we currently
> have. And yes, I know you believe 8 MB won't be created immediately. I
> truly, honestly, do not think so either. But I prefer a system where I
> don't need to rely on anyone's guesses for the future.
In that regard Jeff Garzik's proposal of a blocksize increase with a
miner vote feedback mechanism is a huge improvement over Gavin's
proposal.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000008c0be16e152f86ab3a271a13c3f41c56228d72990abf7bd
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150623/804e5dbb/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2ā¦a2np2
2023-06-07 15:39:45
in reply to nevent1qā¦j2sd
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Seen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 15:39:45Event JSON
{
"id": "8245f2e416598e546f46d12444f021258425b7e4031c8dba99ba6f8da93b4b41",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686152385,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"1936c15d372dc9e8a0eaf645dcff207375e90675dbebfadcf82370abc654737d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"7cb179120e5f051ed5a4287a13b4dcf65b1252882703c43f073829ab92c37aec",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2015-06-23\nš Original message:On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:26:38PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:\n\u003e On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Wladimir noted that 'The original presented intention of block size\n\u003e \u003e\u003e increase was a one-time \"scaling\" to grant time for more decentralizing\n\u003e \u003e\u003e solutions to develop'\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Comments?\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Consensus is that this process is too painful to go through once a year.\n\u003e \u003e I agree.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e If you believe we will need to go through this process once a year, we are\n\u003e not talking about a one-time scaling to grant time for more decentralizing\n\u003e solutions. It means you think we should keep scaling. I don't disagree\n\u003e there - as long as we're talking about scaling as availability of\n\u003e bandwidth, storage and processing power increase, there is no reason\n\u003e Bitcoin's blockchain can't grow proportionally.\n\u003e \n\u003e However, an initial bump 8 MB and the growth rate afterwards seem more like\n\u003e a no-effectively-limit-ever to me.\n\nIn particular, note how this bump is being proposed at a time when\nblockchain space demand is so low that transactions usually cost well\nunder a penny each, a insignificant amount of money for almost all\nuse-cases.\n\n\u003e I fear that the wish of not wanting to deal with - admittedly - a very hard\n\u003e problem, resulted here in throwing away several protections we currently\n\u003e have. And yes, I know you believe 8 MB won't be created immediately. I\n\u003e truly, honestly, do not think so either. But I prefer a system where I\n\u003e don't need to rely on anyone's guesses for the future.\n\nIn that regard Jeff Garzik's proposal of a blocksize increase with a\nminer vote feedback mechanism is a huge improvement over Gavin's\nproposal.\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n000000000000000008c0be16e152f86ab3a271a13c3f41c56228d72990abf7bd\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 650 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150623/804e5dbb/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "03816c5ce074d09ee4bc64a602984a3b0dcb29fb6d3adb97b4088f6508de03fa1fcd3d5122cce22f2990e5c20b1d780e9489f5af86de94e8b4028f026e3e14e7"
}