diff options
| author | Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com> | 2015-08-11 14:26:48 -0500 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-08-11 19:26:52 +0000 |
| commit | 67302728624815e665583a4d1ceb88ecca1320ca (patch) | |
| tree | 44171d980a6686c9a0f10fbefc749762044a2e72 | |
| parent | 312ec2c38b5576c0c7223e3f8e8ccb52413c0862 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-67302728624815e665583a4d1ceb88ecca1320ca.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-67302728624815e665583a4d1ceb88ecca1320ca.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process
| -rw-r--r-- | c1/973a227ab98e850c86f77e10c043da6161f92b | 712 |
1 files changed, 712 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/c1/973a227ab98e850c86f77e10c043da6161f92b b/c1/973a227ab98e850c86f77e10c043da6161f92b new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f8c61c564 --- /dev/null +++ b/c1/973a227ab98e850c86f77e10c043da6161f92b @@ -0,0 +1,712 @@ +Return-Path: <mickeybob@gmail.com> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70AFD8D9 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:26:52 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com (mail-wi0-f175.google.com + [209.85.212.175]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F6A589 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:26:50 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so87269986wic.1 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:26:48 -0700 (PDT) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; + h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to + :cc:content-type; + bh=Mco9rJSJZBMMZXQII853PBWB1wpLatnzWlYUjoCmYdw=; + b=Zl9jPDms7CAsBc+e7SaJEXLeoW84znC8djWgze1fSZ0EgMK2f3brZ4U+M1YILxnhBW + t+2Eq5CQwrnQIpGZ70kyZDcfddnLDsqsUlEnTqpRY0tRAs51WL04oc/uRdxDw8PHWJxH + O6uVEXj6Vz9i6Np1YBsEWf5rBYSYscMp7lFoZCRzADai4yaX0OczwfmEFBZ0L84R0yOm + qgFtWC1L/VmSZzpHtpZO6IxgZWSWsMaggKnncbmvKM6pW+5rzVyGOSfUzmbi2NVsLpER + yzlpEcOxdi9G3lySkrKsHkymw1pYmsJ9PXF6CJwCDNKtIoIBI2Uk170EKHMxRK9ZWFDJ + G+AQ== +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.180.91.107 with SMTP id cd11mr36669837wib.51.1439321208806; + Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:26:48 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by 10.27.78.207 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:26:48 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-uNVaf68vVSwe0r+6WmUJUu76JQgMDrS4OryiiMhLr8vg@mail.gmail.com> +References: <CABsx9T16fH+56isq95m4+QWsKwP==tf75ep8ghnEcBoV4OtZJA@mail.gmail.com> + <2547793.e4fEoOQyIR@coldstorage> + <CAOG=w-thKPQUPx_ev3qzgkHjBfF3f_6EtFWq3QJdw1fETdnzhA@mail.gmail.com> + <1623892.Xps1bl6nlD@coldstorage> + <CAOG=w-u7KwhTg1b-WvD97ZY5oBbvLBdsOGLedS=fx1fBw_hZ8g@mail.gmail.com> + <20150811083806.4689995.85497.4220@thomaszander.se> + <CADZB0_a93oDAEro-6h6UZprVyvRUTaB_tzggU8WUWKGJjbLeRw@mail.gmail.com> + <CAOG=w-uNVaf68vVSwe0r+6WmUJUu76JQgMDrS4OryiiMhLr8vg@mail.gmail.com> +Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:26:48 -0500 +Message-ID: <CALgxB7vGjgFgS4+hw7TomwuJ_UhZiyYybVekTM9A4sszZvj7dg@mail.gmail.com> +From: Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com> +To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043bdf745e6275051d0e1527 +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, + DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW + autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:26:52 -0000 + +--f46d043bdf745e6275051d0e1527 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 + +All things considered, if people want to participate in a global consensus +network, and the technology exist to do it at a lower cost, then is it +sensible or even possible to somehow arbitrarily set the price of +participating in a global consensus network to be expensive? Can someone +please walk me through how that's expected to play out because I'm really +having a hard time understanding how it could work. + + + +On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev < +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: + +> More people using Bitcoin does not necessarily mean more transactions +> being processed by the block chain. Satoshi was forward-thinking enough to +> include a powerful script-signature system, something which has never +> really existed before. Though suffering from some limitations to be sure, +> this smart contract execution framework is expressive enough to enable a +> wide variety of new features without changing bitcoin itself. +> +> One of these invented features is micropayment channels -- the ability for +> two parties to rapidly exchange funds while only settling the final balance +> to the block chain, and to do so in an entirely trustless way. Right now +> people don't use scripts to do interesting things like this, but there is +> absolutely no reason why they can't. Lightning network is a vision of a +> future where everyone uses a higher-layer protocol for their transactions +> which only periodically settle on the block chain. It is entirely possible +> that you may be able to do all your day-to-day transactions in bitcoin yet +> only settle accounts every other week, totaling 13kB per year. A 1MB block +> could support that level of usage by 4 million people, which is many orders +> of magnitude more than the number of people presently using bitcoin on a +> day to day basis. +> +> And that, by the way, is without considering as-yet uninvented +> applications of existing or future script which will provide even further +> improvements to scale. This is very fertile ground being explored by very +> few people. One thing I hope to come out of this block size debate is a lot +> more people (like Joseph Poon) looking at how bitcoin script can be used to +> enable new and innovative resource-efficient and privacy-enhancing payment +> protocols. +> +> The network has room to grow. It just requires wallet developers and other +> infrastructure folk to step up to the plate and do their part in deploying +> this technology. +> +> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:14 AM, Angel Leon <gubatron@gmail.com> wrote: +> +>> - policy neutrality. +>> - It can't be censored. +>> - it can't be shut down +>> - and the rules cannot change from underneath you. +>> +>> except it can be shutdown the minute it actually gets used by its +>> inability to scale. +>> +>> what's the point of having all this if nobody can use it? +>> what's the point of going through all that energy and CO2 for a mere +>> 24,000 transactions an hour? +>> +>> It's clear that it's just a matter of time before it collapses. +>> +>> Here's a simple proposal (concept) that doesn't pretend to set a fixed +>> block size limit as you can't ever know the demands the future will bring +>> https://gist.github.com/gubatron/143e431ee01158f27db4 +>> +>> We don't need to go as far as countries with hyper inflation trying to +>> use the technology to make it collapse, anybody here who has distributed +>> commercial/free end user software knows that any small company out there +>> installs more copies in a couple weeks than all the bitcoin users we have +>> at the moment, all we need is a single company/project with a decent amount +>> of users who are now enabled to transact directly on the blockchain to +>> screw it all up (perhaps OpenBazaar this winter could make this whole thing +>> come down, hopefully they'll take this debate and the current limitations +>> before their release, and boy are they coding nonstop on it now that they +>> got funded), the last of your fears should be a malicious government trying +>> to shut you down, for that to happen you must make an impact first, for now +>> this is a silly game in the grand scheme of things. +>> +>> And you did sound pretty bad, all of his points were very valid and they +>> share the concern of many people, many investors, entrepreneurs putting +>> shitload of money, time and their lives on a much larger vision than that +>> of a network that does a mere 3,500 tx/hour, but some people seem to be +>> able to live in impossible or useless ideals. +>> +>> It's simply irresponsible to not want to give the network a chance to +>> grow a bit more. Miners centralizing is inevitable given the POW based +>> consensus, hobbists-mining is only there for countries with very cheap +>> energy. +>> +>> If things remain this way, this whole thing will be a massive failure and +>> it will probably take another decade before we can open our mouths about +>> cryptocurrencies, decentralization and what not, and this stubornness will +>> be the one policy that censored everyone, that shutdown everyone, that made +>> the immutable rules not matter. +>> +>> Perhaps it will be Stellar what ends up delivering at this stubborn pace. +>> +>> http://twitter.com/gubatron +>> +>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:38 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev < +>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: +>> +>>> >It follows then, that if we make a decision now which destroys that +>>> property, which makes it possible to censor bitcoin, to deny service, or to +>>> pressure miners into changing rules contrary to user interests, then +>>> Bitcoin is no longer interesting. +>>> +>>> You asked to be convinced of the need for bigger blocks. I gave that. +>>> What makes you think bitcoin will break when more people use it? +>>> +>>> Sent on the go, excuse the brevity. +>>> *From: *Mark Friedenbach +>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, 11 August 2015 08:10 +>>> *To: *Thomas Zander +>>> *Cc: *Bitcoin Dev +>>> *Subject: *Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process +>>> +>>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev < +>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: +>>> +>>>> On Monday 10. August 2015 23.03.39 Mark Friedenbach wrote: +>>>> > This is where things diverge. It's fine to pick a new limit or growth +>>>> > trajectory. But defend it with data and reasoned analysis. +>>>> +>>>> We currently serve about 0,007% of the world population sending maybe +>>>> one +>>>> transaction a month. +>>>> This can only go up. +>>>> +>>>> There are about 20 currencies in the world that are unstable and +>>>> showing early +>>>> signs of hyperinflation. If even small percentage of these people +>>>> cash-out and +>>>> get Bitcoins for their savings you'd have the amount of people using +>>>> Bitcoin +>>>> as savings go from maybe half a million to 10 million in the space of a +>>>> couple +>>>> of months. Why so fast? Because all the world currencies are linked. +>>>> Practically all currencies follow the USD, and while that one may stay +>>>> robust +>>>> and standing, the linkage has been shown in the past to cause +>>>> chain-effects. +>>>> +>>>> It is impossible to predict how much uptake Bitcoin will take, but we +>>>> have +>>>> seen big rises in price as Cyprus had a bailin and then when Greece +>>>> first +>>>> showed bad signs again. +>>>> Lets do our due diligence and agree that in the current world economy +>>>> there +>>>> are sure signs that people are considering Bitcoin on a big scale. +>>>> +>>>> Bigger amount of people holding Bitcoin savings won't make the +>>>> transaction +>>>> rate go up very much, but if you have feet on the ground you already +>>>> see that +>>>> people go back to barter in countries like Poland, Ireland, Greece etc. +>>>> And Bitcoin will be an alternative to good to ignore. Then transaction +>>>> rates +>>>> will go up. Dramatically. +>>>> +>>>> If you are asking for numbers, that is a bit tricky. Again; we are at +>>>> 0,007%... Thats like a f-ing rounding error in the world economy. You +>>>> can't +>>>> reason from that. Its like using a float to do calculations that you +>>>> should +>>>> have done in a double and getting weird output. +>>>> +>>>> Bottom line is that a maximum size of 8Mb blocks is not that odd. +>>>> Because a 20 +>>>> times increase is very common in a "company" that is about 6 years old. +>>>> For instance Android was about that age when it started to get shipped +>>>> by non- +>>>> Google companies. There the increase was substantially bigger and the +>>>> company +>>>> backing it was definitely able to change direction faster than the +>>>> Bitcoin +>>>> oiltanker can change direction. +>>>> +>>>> ... +>>>> +>>>> Another metric to remember; if you follow hackernews (well, the +>>>> incubator more +>>>> than the linked articles) you'd be exposed to the thinking of these +>>>> startups. +>>>> Their only criteria is growth. and this is rather substantial growth. +>>>> Like +>>>> 150% per month. Naturally, most of these build on top of html or other +>>>> existing technologies. But the point is that exponential growth is +>>>> expected +>>>> in any startup. They typically have a much much more agressive +>>>> timeline, +>>>> though. Every month instead of every year. +>>>> Having exponential growth in the blockchain is really not odd and even +>>>> if we +>>>> have LN or sidechains or the next changetip, this space will be used. +>>>> And we +>>>> will still have scarcity. +>>> +>>> +>>> I'm sorry, I really don't want to sound like a jerk, but not a single +>>> word of that mattered. Yes we all want Bitcoin to scale such that every +>>> person in the world can use it without difficulty. However if that were all +>>> that we cared about then I would be remiss if I did not point out that +>>> there are plenty of better, faster, and cheaper solutions to finding global +>>> consensus over a payment ledger than Bitcoin. Architectures which are +>>> algorithmically superior in their scaling properties. Indeed they are +>>> already implemented and you can use them today: +>>> +>>> https://www.stellar.org/ +>>> http://opentransactions.org/ +>>> +>>> So why do I work on Bitcoin, and why do I care about the outcome of this +>>> debate? Because Bitcoin offers one thing, and one thing only which +>>> alternative architectures fundamentally lack: policy neutrality. It can't +>>> be censored, it can't be shut down, and the rules cannot change from +>>> underneath you. *That* is what Bitcoin offers that can't be replicated at +>>> higher scale with a SQL database and an audit log. +>>> +>>> It follows then, that if we make a decision now which destroys that +>>> property, which makes it possible to censor bitcoin, to deny service, or to +>>> pressure miners into changing rules contrary to user interests, then +>>> Bitcoin is no longer interesting. We might as well get rid of mining at +>>> that point and make Bitcoin look like Stellar or Open-Transactions because +>>> at least then we'd scale even better and not be pumping millions of tons of +>>> CO2 into the atmosphere from running all those ASICs. +>>> +>>> On the other side, 3Tb harddrives are sold, which take 8Mb blocks without +>>>> problems. +>>>> +>>> +>>> Straw man, storage is not an issue. +>>> +>>> +>>>> You can buy broadband in every relevant country that easily supports the +>>>> bandwidth we need. (remember we won't jump to 8Mb in a day, it will +>>>> likely +>>>> take at least 6 months). +>>>> +>>> +>>> Neither one of those assertions is clear. Keep in mind the goal is to +>>> have Bitcoin survive active censorship. Presumably that means being able to +>>> run a node even in the face of a hostile ISP or government. Furthermore, it +>>> means being location independent and being able to move around. In many +>>> places the higher the bandwidth requirements the fewer the number of ISPs +>>> that are available to service you, and the more visible you are. +>>> +>>> It may also be necessary to be able to run over Tor. And not just +>>> today's Tor which is developed, serviced, and supported by the US +>>> government, but a Tor or I2P that future governments have turned hostile +>>> towards and actively censor or repress. Or existing authoritative +>>> governments, for that matter. How much bandwidth would be available through +>>> those connections? +>>> +>>> It may hopefully never be necessary to operate under such constraints, +>>> except by freedom seeking individuals within existing totalitarian regimes. +>>> However the credible threat of doing so may be what keeps Bitcoin from +>>> being repressed in the first place. Lose the capability to go underground, +>>> and it will be pressured into regulation, eventually. +>>> +>>> To the second point, it has been previously pointed out that large +>>> miners stand to gain from larger blocks, for the same basic underlying +>>> reasons as selfish mining. The incentive is to increase blocks, and miners +>>> are able to do so at will and without cost. I would not be so certain that +>>> we wouldn't see large blocks sooner than that. +>>> +>>> +>>>> We should get the inverted bloom filters stuff (or competing products) +>>>> working +>>>> at least on a one-to-one basis so we can solve the propagation time +>>>> problem. +>>>> There frankly is a huge amount of optimization that can be done in that +>>>> area, +>>>> we don't even use locality (pingtime) to optimize distribution. +>>>> From my experience you can expect a 2-magnitude speedup in that same 6 +>>>> month +>>>> period by focusing some research there. +>>>> +>>> +>>> This is basically already deployed thanks to Matt's relay network. +>>> Further improvements are not going to have dramatic effects. +>>> +>>> +>>>> Remember 8Gb/block still doesn't support VISA/Mastercard. +>>>> +>>> +>>> No, it doesn't. And 8GB/block is ludicrously large -- it would +>>> absolutely, without any doubt destroy the very nature of Bitcoin, turning +>>> it into a fundamentally uninteresting reincarnation of the existing +>>> financial system. And still be unable to compete with VISA/Mastercard. +>>> +>>> So why then the pressure to go down a route that WILL lead to failure by +>>> your own metrics? +>>> +>>> I humbly suggest that maybe we should play the strengths of Bitcoin +>>> instead -- it's trustlessness via policy neutrality. +>>> +>>> Either that, or go work on Stellar. Because that's where it's headed +>>> otherwise. +>>> +>>> +>>> _______________________________________________ +>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list +>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev +>>> +>>> +>> +> +> _______________________________________________ +> bitcoin-dev mailing list +> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev +> +> + +--f46d043bdf745e6275051d0e1527 +Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"ltr">All things considered, if people want to participate in a = +global consensus network, and the technology exist to do it at a lower cost= +, then is it sensible or even possible to somehow arbitrarily set the price= + of participating in a global consensus network to be expensive? Can someon= +e please walk me through how that's expected to play out because I'= +m really having a hard time understanding how it could work.<div><br></div>= +<div><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo= +te">On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev <span= + dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" t= +arget=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote= +:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-le= +ft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>More pe= +ople using Bitcoin does not necessarily mean more transactions being proces= +sed by the block chain. Satoshi was forward-thinking enough to include a po= +werful script-signature system, something which has never really existed be= +fore. Though suffering from some limitations to be sure, this smart contrac= +t execution framework is expressive enough to enable a wide variety of new = +features without changing bitcoin itself.<br><br></div>One of these invente= +d features is micropayment channels -- the ability for two parties to rapid= +ly exchange funds while only settling the final balance to the block chain,= + and to do so in an entirely trustless way. Right now people don't use = +scripts to do interesting things like this, but there is absolutely no reas= +on why they can't. Lightning network is a vision of a future where ever= +yone uses a higher-layer protocol for their transactions which only periodi= +cally settle on the block chain. It is entirely possible that you may be ab= +le to do all your day-to-day transactions in bitcoin yet only settle accoun= +ts every other week, totaling 13kB per year. A 1MB block could support that= + level of usage by 4 million people, which is many orders of magnitude more= + than the number of people presently using bitcoin on a day to day basis.<b= +r><br></div>And that, by the way, is without considering as-yet uninvented = +applications of existing or future script which will provide even further i= +mprovements to scale. This is very fertile ground being explored by very fe= +w people. One thing I hope to come out of this block size debate is a lot m= +ore people (like Joseph Poon) looking at how bitcoin script can be used to = +enable new and innovative resource-efficient and privacy-enhancing payment = +protocols.<br><br></div>The network has room to grow. It just requires wall= +et developers and other infrastructure folk to step up to the plate and do = +their part in deploying this technology.<br></div><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><di= +v class=3D"h5"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On= + Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:14 AM, Angel Leon <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"= +mailto:gubatron@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gubatron@gmail.com</a>></sp= +an> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;= +border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">-<span style= +=3D"font-size:13px"> policy neutrality.=C2=A0</span><div><span style=3D"fon= +t-size:13px">- It can't be censored.</span></div><div><span style=3D"fo= +nt-size:13px">- it can't be shut down</span></div><div><span style=3D"f= +ont-size:13px">- and the rules cannot change from underneath you.<br><br></= +span><div>except it can be shutdown the minute it actually gets used by its= + inability to scale.<br><br>what's the point of having all this if nobo= +dy can use it?<br>what's the point of going through all that energy and= + CO2 for a mere 24,000 transactions an hour?<br><br>It's clear that it&= +#39;s just a matter of time before it collapses.<br><br>Here's a simple= + proposal (concept) that doesn't pretend to set a fixed block size limi= +t as you can't ever know the demands the future will bring <a href=3D"h= +ttps://gist.github.com/gubatron/143e431ee01158f27db4" target=3D"_blank">htt= +ps://gist.github.com/gubatron/143e431ee01158f27db4</a> <br><br>We don't= + need to go as far as countries with hyper inflation trying to use the tech= +nology to make it collapse, anybody here who has distributed commercial/fre= +e end user software knows that any small company out there installs more co= +pies in a couple weeks than all the bitcoin users we have at the moment, al= +l we need is a single company/project with a decent amount of users who are= + now enabled to transact directly on the blockchain to screw it all up (per= +haps OpenBazaar this winter could make this whole thing come down, hopefull= +y they'll take this debate and the current limitations before their rel= +ease, and boy are they coding nonstop on it now that they got funded), the = +last of your fears should be a malicious government trying to shut you down= +, for that to happen you must make an impact first, for now this is a silly= + game in the grand scheme of things.</div><div><br>And you did sound pretty= + bad, all of his points were very valid and they share the concern of many = +people, many investors, entrepreneurs putting shitload of money, time and t= +heir lives on a much larger vision than that of a network that does a mere = +3,500 tx/hour, but some people seem to be able to live in impossible or use= +less ideals.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>It's simply irresponsible t= +o not want to give the network a chance to grow a bit more. Miners centrali= +zing is inevitable given the POW based consensus, hobbists-mining is only t= +here for countries with very cheap energy.<br><br>If things remain this way= +, this whole thing will be a massive failure and it will probably take anot= +her decade before we can open our mouths about cryptocurrencies, decentrali= +zation and what not, and this stubornness will be the one policy that censo= +red everyone, that shutdown everyone, that made the immutable rules not mat= +ter.<br><br>Perhaps it will be Stellar what ends up delivering at this stub= +born pace.</div></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br clear=3D"all"><d= +iv><div><a href=3D"http://twitter.com/gubatron" target=3D"_blank">http://tw= +itter.com/gubatron</a><br></div></div> +<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><div>On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:38 AM, T= +homas Zander via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoi= +n-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxf= +oundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class=3D"gma= +il_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-lef= +t:1ex"><div><div><div style=3D"background-color:rgb(255,255,255);line-heigh= +t:initial"> = + <div style=3D"width:100%;font-size:initial;font-famil= +y:Calibri,'Slate Pro',sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:in= +itial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);fo= +nt-family:sans-serif">>It follows then, that if we make a decision now w= +hich destroys that property, which makes it possible to censor bitcoin, to = +deny service, or to pressure miners into changing rules contrary to user in= +terests, then Bitcoin is no longer interesting. </span></div><div style=3D"= +width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,'Slate Pro',sans-s= +erif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,2= +55)"><span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif"><br></span></d= +iv><div style=3D"width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,'Slat= +e Pro',sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-co= +lor:rgb(255,255,255)"><span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-seri= +f">You asked to be convinced of the need for bigger blocks. I gave that.</s= +pan></div><div style=3D"width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,&#= +39;Slate Pro',sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;backgr= +ound-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sa= +ns-serif">What makes you think bitcoin will break when more people use it?<= +/span></div> = + <div = +style=3D"width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,'Slate Pro= +9;,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(= +255,255,255)"><br style=3D"display:initial"></div> = + = + = + <div style=3D"font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,= +9;Slate Pro',sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;backgro= +und-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Sent=C2=A0on=C2=A0the=C2=A0go,=C2=A0excuse=C2= +=A0the=C2=A0brevity.=C2=A0</div> = + = + <table style=3D= +"background-color:white;border-spacing:0px" width=3D"100%"> <tbody><tr><td = +colspan=3D"2" style=3D"font-size:initial;text-align:initial;background-colo= +r:rgb(255,255,255)"> <div style=3D"border-style:s= +olid none none;border-top-color:rgb(181,196,223);border-top-width:1pt;paddi= +ng:3pt 0in 0in;font-family:Tahoma,'BB Alpha Sans','Slate Pro= +9;;font-size:10pt"> <div><b>From: </b>Mark Friedenbach</div><div><b>Sent: = +</b>Tuesday, 11 August 2015 08:10</div><div><b>To: </b>Thomas Zander</div><= +div><b>Cc: </b>Bitcoin Dev</div><div><b>Subject: </b>Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees= + and the block-finding process</div></div></td></tr></tbody></table><div st= +yle=3D"border-style:solid none none;border-top-color:rgb(186,188,209);borde= +r-top-width:1pt;font-size:initial;text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(2= +55,255,255)"></div><br><div><div dir=3D"ltr">On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:31 = +PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:b= +itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.l= +inuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div= + class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 = +0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>On Monday 10. A= +ugust <a href=3D"tel:2015%2023.03.39" value=3D"+12015230339" target=3D"_bla= +nk">2015 23.03.39</a> Mark Friedenbach wrote:<br> +> This is where things diverge. It's fine to pick a new limit or gro= +wth<br> +> trajectory. But defend it with data and reasoned analysis.<br> +<br> +</span>We currently serve about 0,007% of the world population sending mayb= +e one<br> +transaction a month.<br> +This can only go up.<br> +<br> +There are about 20 currencies in the world that are unstable and showing ea= +rly<br> +signs of hyperinflation. If even small percentage of these people cash-out = +and<br> +get Bitcoins for their savings you'd have the amount of people using Bi= +tcoin<br> +as savings go from maybe half a million to 10 million in the space of a cou= +ple<br> +of months. Why so fast? Because all the world currencies are linked.<br> +Practically all currencies follow the USD, and while that one may stay robu= +st<br> +and standing, the linkage has been shown in the past to cause chain-effects= +.<br> +<br> +It is impossible to predict how much uptake Bitcoin will take, but we have<= +br> +seen big rises in price as Cyprus had a bailin and then when Greece first<b= +r> +showed bad signs again.<br> +Lets do our due diligence and agree that in the current world economy there= +<br> +are sure signs that people are considering Bitcoin on a big scale.<br> +<br> +Bigger amount of people holding Bitcoin savings won't make the transact= +ion<br> +rate go up very much, but if you have feet on the ground you already see th= +at<br> +people go back to barter in countries like Poland, Ireland, Greece etc.<br> +And Bitcoin will be an alternative to good to ignore.=C2=A0 Then transactio= +n rates<br> +will go up. Dramatically.<br> +<br> +If you are asking for numbers, that is a bit tricky. Again; we are at<br> +0,007%... Thats like a f-ing rounding error in the world economy. You can&#= +39;t<br> +reason from that. Its like using a float to do calculations that you should= +<br> +have done in a double and getting weird output.<br> +<br> +Bottom line is that a maximum size of 8Mb blocks is not that odd. Because a= + 20<br> +times increase is very common in a "company" that is about 6 year= +s old.<br> +For instance Android was about that age when it started to get shipped by n= +on-<br> +Google companies. There the increase was substantially bigger and the compa= +ny<br> +backing it was definitely able to change direction faster than the Bitcoin<= +br> +oiltanker can change direction.<br> +<br> +...<br> +<br> +Another metric to remember; if you follow hackernews (well, the incubator m= +ore<br> +than the linked articles) you'd be exposed to the thinking of these sta= +rtups.<br> +Their only criteria is growth. and this is rather substantial growth. Like<= +br> +150% per month.=C2=A0 Naturally, most of these build on top of html or othe= +r<br> +existing technologies.=C2=A0 But the point is that exponential growth is ex= +pected<br> +in any startup.=C2=A0 They typically have a much much more agressive timeli= +ne,<br> +though. Every month instead of every year.<br> +Having exponential growth in the blockchain is really not odd and even if w= +e<br> +have LN or sidechains or the next changetip, this space will be used. And w= +e<br> +will still have scarcity.</blockquote><div>=C2=A0<br></div><div>I'm sor= +ry, I really don't want to sound like a jerk, but not a single word of = +that mattered. Yes we all want Bitcoin to scale such that every person in t= +he world can use it without difficulty. However if that were all that we ca= +red about then I would be remiss if I did not point out that there are plen= +ty of better, faster, and cheaper solutions to finding global consensus ove= +r a payment ledger than Bitcoin. Architectures which are algorithmically su= +perior in their scaling properties. Indeed they are already implemented and= + you can use them today:<br><br><a href=3D"https://www.stellar.org/" target= +=3D"_blank">https://www.stellar.org/</a><br><a href=3D"http://opentransacti= +ons.org/" target=3D"_blank">http://opentransactions.org/</a><br><br></div><= +div>So why do I work on Bitcoin, and why do I care about the outcome of thi= +s debate? Because Bitcoin offers one thing, and one thing only which altern= +ative architectures fundamentally lack: policy neutrality. It can't be = +censored, it can't be shut down, and the rules cannot change from under= +neath you. *That* is what Bitcoin offers that can't be replicated at hi= +gher scale with a SQL database and an audit log.<br><br></div><div>It follo= +ws then, that if we make a decision now which destroys that property, which= + makes it possible to censor bitcoin, to deny service, or to pressure miner= +s into changing rules contrary to user interests, then Bitcoin is no longer= + interesting. We might as well get rid of mining at that point and make Bit= +coin look like Stellar or Open-Transactions because at least then we'd = +scale even better and not be pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmos= +phere from running all those ASICs.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote cla= +ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pa= +dding-left:1ex"> + +On the other side, 3Tb harddrives are sold, which take 8Mb blocks without<b= +r> +problems.<br> +</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Straw man, storage is not an issue.<br></d= +iv><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0= + .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">You can buy broadband in= + every relevant country that easily supports the<br> +bandwidth we need. (remember we won't jump to 8Mb in a day, it will lik= +ely<br> +take at least 6 months).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Neither one of= + those assertions is clear. Keep in mind the goal is to have Bitcoin surviv= +e active censorship. Presumably that means being able to run a node even in= + the face of a hostile ISP or government. Furthermore, it means being locat= +ion independent and being able to move around. In many places the higher th= +e bandwidth requirements the fewer the number of ISPs that are available to= + service you, and the more visible you are.<br><br></div><div>It may also b= +e necessary to be able to run over Tor. And not just today's Tor which = +is developed, serviced, and supported by the US government, but a Tor or I2= +P that future governments have turned hostile towards and actively censor o= +r repress. Or existing authoritative governments, for that matter. How much= + bandwidth would be available through those connections?<br><br></div><div>= +It may hopefully never be necessary to operate under such constraints, exce= +pt by freedom seeking individuals within existing totalitarian regimes. How= +ever the credible threat of doing so may be what keeps Bitcoin from being r= +epressed in the first place. Lose the capability to go underground, and it = +will be pressured into regulation, eventually.<br><br></div><div>To the sec= +ond point, it has been previously pointed out that large miners stand to ga= +in from larger blocks, for the same basic underlying reasons as selfish min= +ing. The incentive is to increase blocks, and miners are able to do so at w= +ill and without cost. I would not be so certain that we wouldn't see la= +rge blocks sooner than that.<br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D= +"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding= +-left:1ex"> +We should get the inverted bloom filters stuff (or competing products) work= +ing<br> +at least on a one-to-one basis so we can solve the propagation time problem= +.<br>There frankly is a huge amount of optimization that can be done in tha= +t area,<br> +we don't even use locality (pingtime) to optimize distribution.<br> +From my experience you can expect a 2-magnitude speedup in that same 6 mont= +h<br> +period by focusing some research there.<br> + + +</blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is basically already deployed thanks = +to Matt's relay network. Further improvements are not going to have dra= +matic effects.<br>=C2=A0<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style= +=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Remember= + 8Gb/block still doesn't support VISA/Mastercard.<br></blockquote><div>= +<br></div><div>No, it doesn't. And 8GB/block is ludicrously large -- it= + would absolutely, without any doubt destroy the very nature of Bitcoin, tu= +rning it into a fundamentally uninteresting reincarnation of the existing f= +inancial system. And still be unable to compete with VISA/Mastercard.<br><b= +r></div><div>So why then the pressure to go down a route that WILL lead to = +failure by your own metrics?<br><br></div><div>I humbly suggest that maybe = +we should play the strengths of Bitcoin instead -- it's trustlessness v= +ia policy neutrality.<br><br></div><div>Either that, or go work on Stellar.= + Because that's where it's headed otherwise.<br></div></div></div><= +/div> +<br></div></div> +<br></div></div><span>_______________________________________________<br> +bitcoin-dev mailing list<br> +<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">= +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br> +<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" = +rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= +man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br> +<br></span></blockquote></div><br></div> +</blockquote></div><br></div> +</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br> +bitcoin-dev mailing list<br> +<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.= +linuxfoundation.org</a><br> +<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" = +rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= +man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br> +<br></blockquote></div><br></div> + +--f46d043bdf745e6275051d0e1527-- + |