📅 Original date posted:2015-06-01
📝 Original message:That is good. I oppose 20MB because I estimate it may increase the
overall orphan rate to an unacceptable level. 5MB, 8MB or probably
10MB should be ok.
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Chun Wang <1240902 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I cannot believe why Gavin (who seems to have difficulty to spell my
>> name correctly.) insists on his 20MB proposal regardless the
>> community. BIP66 has been introduced for a long time and no one knows
>> when the 95% goal can be met. This change to the block max size must
>> take one year or more to be adopted. We should increase the limit and
>> increase it now. 20MB is simply too big and too risky, sometimes we
>> need compromise and push things forward. I agree with any solution
>> lower than 10MB in its first two years.
>>
>
> Thanks, that's useful!
>
> 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.
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
Chun Wang [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ed…mqjxc
2023-06-07 15:36:05
in reply to nevent1q…evcc
Author Public Key
npub1edz8qyleqfqddckyjs0erkqysv2n76fwatw32nehpm5k7gertf4shmqjxcPublished at
2023-06-07 15:36:05Event JSON
{
"id": "66a53f49262c56650b4cadfac800c992f7d6d28bbf6ef6219330c31da10ed27d",
"pubkey": "cb447013f90240d6e2c4941f91d80483153f692eeadd154f370ee96f23235a6b",
"created_at": 1686152165,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"112d0de527f63b466f07e709b55d1d4965f1c304d12170877aafb66f5cb05c67",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"bafd0fde1dc63a3c608e1816e2fa828bb1227d9a5007b39bc1263bd21cb2c8cb",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-01\n📝 Original message:That is good. I oppose 20MB because I estimate it may increase the\noverall orphan rate to an unacceptable level. 5MB, 8MB or probably\n10MB should be ok.\n\nOn Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Chun Wang \u003c1240902 at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I cannot believe why Gavin (who seems to have difficulty to spell my\n\u003e\u003e name correctly.) insists on his 20MB proposal regardless the\n\u003e\u003e community. BIP66 has been introduced for a long time and no one knows\n\u003e\u003e when the 95% goal can be met. This change to the block max size must\n\u003e\u003e take one year or more to be adopted. We should increase the limit and\n\u003e\u003e increase it now. 20MB is simply too big and too risky, sometimes we\n\u003e\u003e need compromise and push things forward. I agree with any solution\n\u003e\u003e lower than 10MB in its first two years.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Thanks, that's useful!\n\u003e\n\u003e What do other people think? Would starting at a max of 8 or 4 get\n\u003e consensus? Scaling up a little less than Nielsen's Law of Internet\n\u003e Bandwidth predicts for the next 20 years? (I think predictability is REALLY\n\u003e important).\n\u003e\n\u003e I chose 20 because all of my testing shows it to be safe, and all of my\n\u003e back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate the costs are reasonable.\n\u003e\n\u003e If consensus is \"8 because more than order-of-magnitude increases are scary\"\n\u003e -- ok.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e --\n\u003e Gavin Andresen",
"sig": "5920b4a435eaaa435b20f6f7843f0dadaf0d6e137b0459b0242adfdedb7637b45ec7309072ca652d4203767e498821045a35847190255950ed268976be67dc29"
}