{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-06\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Pieter Wuille \u003cpieter.wuille at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e So if we would have 8 MB blocks, and there is a sudden influx of users\n\u003e\u003e (or settlement systems, who serve much more users) who want to pay high\n\u003e\u003e fees (let's say 20 transactions per second) making the block chain\n\u003e\u003e inaccessible for low fee transactions, and unreliable for medium fee\n\u003e\u003e transactions (for any value of low, medium, and high), would you be ok with\n\u003e\u003e that?\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Yes, that's fine. If the network cannot handle the transaction volume that\n\u003e people want to pay for, then the marginal transactions are priced out. That\n\u003e is true today (otherwise ChangeTip would be operating on-blockchain), and\n\u003e will be true forever.\n\u003e\n\nThe network can \"handle\" any size. I believe that if a majority of miners\nforms SPV mining agreements, then they are no longer affected by the block\nsize, and benefit from making their blocks slow to validate for others (as\nlong as the fee is negligable compared to the subsidy). I'll try to find\nthe time to implement that in my simulator. Some hardware for full nodes\nwill always be able to validate and index the chain, so nobody needs to run\na pesky full node anymore and they can just use a web API to validate\npayments.\n\nBeing able the \"handle\" a particular rate is not a boolean question. It's a\nquestion of how much security, centralization, and risk for systemic error\nwe're willing to tolerate. These are not things you can just observe, so\nlet's keep talking about the risks, and find a solution that we agree on.\n\n\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e If so, why is 8 MB good but 1 MB not? To me, they're a small constant\n\u003e\u003e factor that does not fundamentally improve the scale of the system.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e \"better is better\" -- I applaud efforts to fundamentally improve the\n\u003e scalability of the system, but I am an old, cranky, pragmatic engineer who\n\u003e has seen that successful companies tackle problems that arise and are\n\u003e willing to deploy not-so-perfect solutions if they help whatever short-term\n\u003e problem they're facing.\n\u003e\n\nI don't believe there is a short-term problem. If there is one now, there\nwill be one too at 8 MB blocks (or whatever actual size blocks are\nproduced).\n\n\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I dislike the outlook of \"being forever locked at the same scale\" while\n\u003e\u003e technology evolves, so my proposal tries to address that part. It\n\u003e\u003e intentionally does not try to improve a small factor, because I don't think\n\u003e\u003e it is valuable.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e I think consensus is against you on that point.\n\u003e\n\nMaybe. But I believe that it is essential to not take unnecessary risks,\nand find a non-controversial solution.\n\n-- \nPieter\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150806/895a1775/attachment.html\u003e"}