📅 Original date posted:2015-08-07
📝 Original message:Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-08-07 12:28 寫到:
> 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.
What if we reduce the block size to 0.125MB? That will allow 0.375tx/s.
If 3->24 sounds "almost the same", 3->0.375 also sounds almost the same.
We will have 50000 full nodes, instead of 5000, since it is so
affordable to run a full node.
If 0.125MB sounds too extreme, what about 0.5/0.7/0.9MB? Are we going to
have more full nodes?
No, I'm not trolling. I really want someone to tell me why we
should/shouldn't reduce the block size. Are we going to have more or
less full nodes if we reduce the block size?
jl2012 at xbt.hk [ARCHIVE] /
npub1kc…wjfw4
2023-06-07 15:45:44
in reply to nevent1q…0qht
Author Public Key
npub1kc0zulxt7j4a0ayhzhrz7jk84y7tm4026qcky7w97hlfkxxap24qnwjfw4Published at
2023-06-07 15:45:44Event JSON
{
"id": "6097e54419bbc52b6b15a605839a96408b158da3964eafedb58dc0df73e1010b",
"pubkey": "b61e2e7ccbf4abd7f49715c62f4ac7a93cbdd5ead0316279c5f5fe9b18dd0aaa",
"created_at": 1686152744,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"cf6411bfecea99b0c4ea78e985838b5e3fd62429f4968960ffd260356286401f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b482e63d252a79be484484434151fc825b05cebc4521259b134dd0fcc56b9840",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1e54a6de7941fa2778512f8b39026a806a830835f3e28d29701b37064e5ed5f2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-07\n📝 Original message:Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-08-07 12:28 寫到:\n\u003e On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Gavin Andresen\n\u003e \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieter Wuille\n\u003e\u003e \u003cpieter.wuille at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e I guess my question (and perhaps that's what Jorge is after): do\n\u003e\u003e\u003e you feel that blocks should be increased in response to (or for\n\u003e\u003e\u003e fear of) such a scenario.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size,\n\u003e\u003e and yes, fear of Bad Things Happening as we run up against the 1MB\n\u003e\u003e limit is one of the reasons.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e I take the opinion of smart engineers who actually do resource\n\u003e\u003e planning and have seen what happens when networks run out of\n\u003e\u003e capacity very seriously.\n\u003e \n\u003e This is a fundamental disagreement then. I believe that the demand is\n\u003e infinite if you don't set a fee minimum (and I don't think we should),\n\u003e and it just takes time for the market to find a way to fill whatever\n\u003e is available - the rest goes into off-chain systems anyway. You will\n\u003e run out of capacity at any size, and acting out of fear of that\n\u003e reality does not improve the system. Whatever size blocks are actually\n\u003e produced, I believe the result will either be something people\n\u003e consider too small to be competitive (\"you mean Bitcoin can only do 24\n\u003e transactions per second?\" sounds almost the same as \"you mean Bitcoin\n\u003e can only do 3 transactions per second?\"), or something that is very\n\u003e centralized in practice, and likely both.\n\nWhat if we reduce the block size to 0.125MB? That will allow 0.375tx/s. \nIf 3-\u003e24 sounds \"almost the same\", 3-\u003e0.375 also sounds almost the same. \nWe will have 50000 full nodes, instead of 5000, since it is so \naffordable to run a full node.\n\nIf 0.125MB sounds too extreme, what about 0.5/0.7/0.9MB? Are we going to \nhave more full nodes?\n\nNo, I'm not trolling. I really want someone to tell me why we \nshould/shouldn't reduce the block size. Are we going to have more or \nless full nodes if we reduce the block size?",
"sig": "f8429caa28f938262a404b254c2b70ba49536f1672f46b5fcdc1a10618d5be81dd0a7b1d4b1ffc7c27ad14c12556f26f01984aa212273fcfc6a352f72c437b97"
}