From: "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream•io>
To: Andrew Johnson <andrew.johnson83@gmail•com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Three hardfork-related BIPs
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 15:34:13 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMZUoKmUH7ah7pnUgLHFtwYacw2=v3rJ0-csJ8thRy=REM92iw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMZUoK=eb3jgA7Rwt38tvZt0tYk7gRVPc_2=HUWg1L_vaD93uw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 718 bytes --]
On Jan 27, 2017 03:03, "Andrew Johnson via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.
linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Other researchers have come to the conservative conclusion that we could
handle 4MB blocks today.
I believe this is a mischaracterization of the research conclusions. The
actual conclusion was that the maximum value for the blocksize that the
network can safely handle (at that time) is some value that is
(conservatively) no more than 4MB. This is because the research only
studies one aspect of the effect of blocksize on the network at a time and
the true safe value is the minimum of all aspects. For example, the 4MB
doesn't cover the aspect of quadratic hashing for large transactions in
large blocks.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1187 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-27 20:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-27 1:06 Luke Dashjr
[not found] ` <CAAy62_L-mLhokVy4_WeLBVnxM0Y76dtFBaaDrRvQozxw=J1Ctw@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CAAy62_+1OjF3V5g4wpOyW0KtNGodddJu_cxOfG-f+8LB7D=rPA@mail.gmail.com>
2017-01-27 3:04 ` Andrew Johnson
2017-01-27 4:14 ` Luke Dashjr
[not found] ` <CAAy62_LHtrx7k73kznMpPvheA--0T9YiHkjHArf2KK0Qt+ViUg@mail.gmail.com>
2017-01-27 6:13 ` Andrew Johnson
[not found] ` <CAMZUoKnxqxvPQehdWo1ZaHB-1-od4cHvJRDTmF5x7ty1CdLbUQ@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CAMZUoK=eb3jgA7Rwt38tvZt0tYk7gRVPc_2=HUWg1L_vaD93uw@mail.gmail.com>
2017-01-27 20:34 ` Russell O'Connor [this message]
2017-01-27 20:47 ` Greg Sanders
2017-01-27 21:28 ` Christian Decker
2017-01-27 23:53 ` Andrew Johnson
2017-01-28 4:03 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-01-28 10:36 ` Natanael
2017-01-28 18:29 ` Peter Todd
2017-01-29 19:15 ` Tom Harding
2017-01-29 19:37 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-02-11 15:26 ` Staf Verhaegen
2017-01-29 19:39 ` David Vorick
2017-01-28 19:43 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-01-28 21:54 ` Peter Todd
2017-02-06 16:24 ` mbtc-dev
2017-02-07 20:32 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-01-28 18:22 ` Peter Todd
2017-01-27 4:21 ` Johnson Lau
2017-01-27 18:54 ` t. khan
2017-01-27 12:12 Daniele Pinna
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='CAMZUoKmUH7ah7pnUgLHFtwYacw2=v3rJ0-csJ8thRy=REM92iw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=roconnor@blockstream$(echo .)io \
--cc=andrew.johnson83@gmail$(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