From: Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail•com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] If you had a single chance to double the transactions/second Bitcoin allows...
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 18:18:48 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKzdR-o7_A2N=-=3muXcs7ptnoO2d3wSBAMAziNGs7XjnceGBQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1527 bytes --]
What would you do?
a. Double the block size
b. Reduce the block rate to a half (average 5 minute blocks)
Suppose this is a one time hard fork. There no drastic technical problems
with any of them: "SPV" mining and the relay network has shown that block
propagation is not an issue for such as small change. Mining centralization
won't radically change for a 2x adjustment.
So what would be best for Bitcoin?
I suspect some (if not most of you) would choose b. Because reducing the
block interval saves us real time. Waiting 30 minutes for a 3-block
confirmation is... such a long time! Time that we value. Time that
sometimes we waste waiting. Time that makes a difference for us. Doubling
the block size does not change the user perception of Bitcoin in any way.
Then why most discussions go around doubling the block size?
Each change require less than 20 lines of code (*) in the reference code,
and minimum change in other wallets.
Currently there is no idle mining hardware for hire, so the security of six
10-minute block confirmation is equivalent to the security of six 5-minute
block confirmations, as described in Satoshi's paper (if there were 51%
spare mining hardware for hire, then obviously hiring that hardware for 30
minutes would cost less than hiring it for 1 hour).
Why we discuss a 2x block size increase and not a 1/2 block interval
reduction? Aren't we Bitcoin users after all?
Best regards,
Sergio.
(*) b requires increasing the transaction version number, to support the
old nLockTime rate.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1896 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2015-08-07 21:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-07 21:18 Sergio Demian Lerner [this message]
2015-08-07 21:27 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-07 21:37 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2015-08-07 22:46 ` Natanael
2015-08-07 23:01 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-07 23:08 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2015-08-07 23:17 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-10 20:44 ` Michael Ruddy
2015-08-10 21:01 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-10 22:11 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2015-08-10 22:31 ` Pieter Wuille
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAKzdR-o7_A2N=-=3muXcs7ptnoO2d3wSBAMAziNGs7XjnceGBQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=sergio.d.lerner@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox