📅 Original date posted:2015-08-07
📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I guess my question (and perhaps that's what Jorge is after): do you feel
>> that blocks should be increased in response to (or for fear of) such a
>> scenario.
>>
>
> I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, and
> yes, fear of Bad Things Happening as we run up against the 1MB limit is one
> of the reasons.
>
> I take the opinion of smart engineers who actually do resource planning
> and have seen what happens when networks run out of capacity very seriously.
>
This is a fundamental disagreement then. I believe that the demand is
infinite if you don't set a fee minimum (and I don't think we should), and
it just takes time for the market to find a way to fill whatever is
available - the rest goes into off-chain systems anyway. You will run out
of capacity at any size, and acting out of fear of that reality does not
improve the system. Whatever size blocks are actually produced, I believe
the result will either be something people consider too small to be
competitive ("you mean Bitcoin can only do 24 transactions per second?"
sounds almost the same as "you mean Bitcoin can only do 3 transactions per
second?"), or something that is very centralized in practice, and likely
both.
> And if so, if that is a reason for increase now, won't it be a reason for
>> an increase later as well? It is my impression that your answer is yes,
>> that this is why you want to increase the block size quickly and
>> significantly, but correct me if I'm wrong.
>>
>
> Sure, it might be a reason for an increase later. Here's my message to
> in-the-future Bitcoin engineers: you should consider raising the maximum
> block size if needed and you think the benefits of doing so (like increased
> adoption or lower transaction fees or increased reliability) outweigh the
> costs (like higher operating costs for full-nodes or the disruption caused
> by ANY consensus rule change).
>
In general that sounds reasonable, but it's a dangerous precedent to make
technical decisions based on a fear of change of economics...
--
Pieter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150807/8322a671/attachment.html>;
Pieter Wuille [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tj…jtl6r
2023-06-07 17:33:32
in reply to nevent1q…v3k5
Author Public Key
npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rPublished at
2023-06-07 17:33:32Event JSON
{
"id": "ec6d3b21ac01209e4c9bdb03a0afb7cb6401ecfab9960fd551342421800ebbdc",
"pubkey": "5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6",
"created_at": 1686159212,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"0be39125a55b736c93365735a614c6c3adbad06ad3effa6f21e6b42bef7ccb51",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"cbd2501d53e37c3e8d7f52e116b3599a45b12a4822c0083ecb643860aa525800",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-07\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieter Wuille \u003cpieter.wuille at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I guess my question (and perhaps that's what Jorge is after): do you feel\n\u003e\u003e that blocks should be increased in response to (or for fear of) such a\n\u003e\u003e scenario.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, and\n\u003e yes, fear of Bad Things Happening as we run up against the 1MB limit is one\n\u003e of the reasons.\n\u003e\n\u003e I take the opinion of smart engineers who actually do resource planning\n\u003e and have seen what happens when networks run out of capacity very seriously.\n\u003e\n\nThis is a fundamental disagreement then. I believe that the demand is\ninfinite if you don't set a fee minimum (and I don't think we should), and\nit just takes time for the market to find a way to fill whatever is\navailable - the rest goes into off-chain systems anyway. You will run out\nof capacity at any size, and acting out of fear of that reality does not\nimprove the system. Whatever size blocks are actually produced, I believe\nthe result will either be something people consider too small to be\ncompetitive (\"you mean Bitcoin can only do 24 transactions per second?\"\nsounds almost the same as \"you mean Bitcoin can only do 3 transactions per\nsecond?\"), or something that is very centralized in practice, and likely\nboth.\n\n\n\u003e And if so, if that is a reason for increase now, won't it be a reason for\n\u003e\u003e an increase later as well? It is my impression that your answer is yes,\n\u003e\u003e that this is why you want to increase the block size quickly and\n\u003e\u003e significantly, but correct me if I'm wrong.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Sure, it might be a reason for an increase later. Here's my message to\n\u003e in-the-future Bitcoin engineers: you should consider raising the maximum\n\u003e block size if needed and you think the benefits of doing so (like increased\n\u003e adoption or lower transaction fees or increased reliability) outweigh the\n\u003e costs (like higher operating costs for full-nodes or the disruption caused\n\u003e by ANY consensus rule change).\n\u003e\n\nIn general that sounds reasonable, but it's a dangerous precedent to make\ntechnical decisions based on a fear of change of economics...\n\n-- \nPieter\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150807/8322a671/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "3d1f167899f449ab7309f842d00981bb4270c7f33b43eebc3a4a149633e1215a3f87e7110483a65f1cf0722032de65a77c00da8ab5f7fe54d19cb3d897b0cc23"
}