Re: [bitcoin-dev] Yet another blocklimit proposal / compromise

From: Marcel Jamin <marcel@jamin•net>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Yet another blocklimit proposal / compromise
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 19:54:17 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAUq484fRauFkiaTRc5GE7ZNVEqX_b7-JaSx5_tJeOp=Cjb=jQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTF5BxdeWm1PBBNwWm41o8Y3bMvgSyDm2_CE73ibXnnwiw@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3167 bytes --]

> Therefore it is important that it be reasonably convenient to run full
nodes for decentralisation security.

Yes, and I'm suggesting to define what "reasonably convenient" is in 2016.
Most likely node operators have more than a little headroom for larger
blocks. If you just use more of the processing power / storage / bandwidth
you very likely already paid for then there is no increase in costs.

> I think you maybe misunderstanding what the Chinese miners said also, about
8MB, that was a cap on the maximum they felt they could handle with current
network infrastructure.

And what they felt "remained fair to all to all miners and node operators
worldwide." Increasing network connection requirements might even decrease
mining centralization right now.

2015-09-11 18:47 GMT+02:00 Adam Back <adam@cypherspace•org>:

> Bitcoin security depends on the enforcement of consensus rules which
> is done by economically dependent full nodes.  This is distinct from
> miners fullnodes, and balances miners interests, otherwise SPV nodes
> and decentralisation of policy would tend degrade, I think.  Therefore
> it is important that it be reasonably convenient to run full nodes for
> decentralisation security.
>
> Also you may want to read this summary of Bitcoin decentralisation by Mark:
>
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h7eei/greg_luke_adam_if_xt_takes_over_and_wins_the/cu53eq3
>
> I think you maybe misunderstanding what the Chinese miners said also,
> about 8MB, that was a cap on the maximum they felt they could handle
> with current network infrastructure.
>
> I had proposed 2-4-8MB growing over a 4 year time frame with 2MB once
> the hard-fork is upgraded by everyone in the network.  (I dont
> consider miner triggers, as with soft-fork upgrades, to be an
> appropriate roll out mechanism because it is more important that
> economically dependent full nodes upgrade, though it can be useful to
> know that miners also have upgraded to a reasonable extent to avoid a
> temporary hashrate drop off affecting security).
>
> Adam
>
> On 9 September 2015 at 15:00, Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > I think the overlap of people who want to run a serious mining operation
> and
> > people who are unable to afford a slightly above average internet
> connection
> > is infinitesimally small.
> >
> > 2015-09-09 20:51 GMT+02:00 Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon•cc>:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sep 9, 2015 8:36 PM, "Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev"
> >> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I propose to:
> >> >
> >> > a) assess what blocklimit is currently technically possible without
> >> > driving up costs of running a node up too much. Most systems currently
> >> > running a fullnode probably have some capacity left.
> >>
> >> What about the risk of further increasing mining centralization?
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4805 bytes --]