Rick Wesson [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2011-08-24 šļø Summary of this message: A discussion ...
š
Original date posted:2011-08-24
šļø Summary of this message: A discussion about the possibility of replacing hard limits on block size with something that can adapt dynamically, but it is deemed too early to make such a change.
š Original message:On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Rick Wesson
> <rick at support-intelligence.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > - Replace hard limits (like 1 MB maximum block size) with something
> that
> >> > can
> >> > dynamically adapt with the times. Maybe based on difficulty so it
> can't
> >> > be
> >> > gamed?
> >> Too early for that.
> > Could you provide a reference to why in your estimation it is "to early."
> > Simpy stating this as fact isn't enough to sway demand.
>
> Can you provide a reference to this 'demand' a post by Luke isn't
> enough to support the claim of demand.
>
> how about trend, its a hard limit and as you acknowledged below we are not
there yet; however the trend is for more transactions and we will bump into
the limit. Being good architects we should consider how to scale or
explicitly state why its a good idea not to.
-rick
> We're not at maximum size right now (thankfully).
>
> We don't know what the network dynamics would look like at that
> traffic level. So how could we competently say what the right metrics
> would be to get the right behavior there? Thats what I meant by too
> early.
>
no one ever "knows" what the network dynamics are going to be in developing
infrastructure -- so lets not kid our selves, in being able to estimate this
before the code is even written.
-rick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20110824/7ffd3502/attachment.html>;
šļø Summary of this message: A discussion about the possibility of replacing hard limits on block size with something that can adapt dynamically, but it is deemed too early to make such a change.
š Original message:On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Rick Wesson
> <rick at support-intelligence.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > - Replace hard limits (like 1 MB maximum block size) with something
> that
> >> > can
> >> > dynamically adapt with the times. Maybe based on difficulty so it
> can't
> >> > be
> >> > gamed?
> >> Too early for that.
> > Could you provide a reference to why in your estimation it is "to early."
> > Simpy stating this as fact isn't enough to sway demand.
>
> Can you provide a reference to this 'demand' a post by Luke isn't
> enough to support the claim of demand.
>
> how about trend, its a hard limit and as you acknowledged below we are not
there yet; however the trend is for more transactions and we will bump into
the limit. Being good architects we should consider how to scale or
explicitly state why its a good idea not to.
-rick
> We're not at maximum size right now (thankfully).
>
> We don't know what the network dynamics would look like at that
> traffic level. So how could we competently say what the right metrics
> would be to get the right behavior there? Thats what I meant by too
> early.
>
no one ever "knows" what the network dynamics are going to be in developing
infrastructure -- so lets not kid our selves, in being able to estimate this
before the code is even written.
-rick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20110824/7ffd3502/attachment.html>;