diff options
| author | Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> | 2015-06-26 15:36:30 -0400 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-06-26 19:36:39 +0000 |
| commit | e30b38cccfb17f4f5389729d02de468c5ca34af4 (patch) | |
| tree | 3b5a497d9bf2b3f68846a8e18b28fd9081dd527c | |
| parent | 74cfa0af79fa5ded20b22ae503f991f45feaa876 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-e30b38cccfb17f4f5389729d02de468c5ca34af4.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-e30b38cccfb17f4f5389729d02de468c5ca34af4.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks
| -rw-r--r-- | ac/2f1c09377728c753a4c085ce7242b7f74c452e | 161 |
1 files changed, 161 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/ac/2f1c09377728c753a4c085ce7242b7f74c452e b/ac/2f1c09377728c753a4c085ce7242b7f74c452e new file mode 100644 index 000000000..0b275e436 --- /dev/null +++ b/ac/2f1c09377728c753a4c085ce7242b7f74c452e @@ -0,0 +1,161 @@ +Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19380ACB + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:36:39 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from outmail148096.authsmtp.net (outmail148096.authsmtp.net + [62.13.148.96]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D89B144 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:36:38 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235]) + by punt17.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5QJaZoN021910; + Fri, 26 Jun 2015 20:36:35 +0100 (BST) +Received: from muck (static-71-247-144-172.nycmny.east.verizon.net + [71.247.144.172]) (authenticated bits=128) + by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5QJaVWY036633 + (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); + Fri, 26 Jun 2015 20:36:33 +0100 (BST) +Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:36:30 -0400 +From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> +To: Ross Nicoll <jrn@jrn.me.uk> +Message-ID: <20150626193630.GB17829@muck> +References: <CAPg+sBjOj9eXiDG0F6G54SVKkStF_1HRu2wzGqtFF5X_NAWy4w@mail.gmail.com> + <CADm_Wca+ow4pMzN7SyKjsMdFo0wuUerYYjf5xKs5G_2Q2PzMmA@mail.gmail.com> + <CAPg+sBg=sn7djO_8H16NDg7S7m7_0eTcrgLVofMWQ2ANz+jw9w@mail.gmail.com> + <CADm_WcbQog_UCV=JPHyqTRxKbaGY7jedtHE_D8jJSe_thMg05w@mail.gmail.com> + <CAPg+sBhrBUSfPdMjbLthLEFD17zBC3LoWf9LvZsOD1Vp0D78BQ@mail.gmail.com> + <558DA56F.3010703@jrn.me.uk> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; + protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gj572EiMnwbLXET9" +Content-Disposition: inline +In-Reply-To: <558DA56F.3010703@jrn.me.uk> +X-Server-Quench: a6fbebbf-1c3a-11e5-b396-002590a15da7 +X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: + http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse +X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR + aAdMdAQUEkAaAgsB AmMbWVReU1t7WmA7 bAtPbwFafEtKWxtr + V0pWR1pVCwQmRRlg fE94NXBydANAe30+ ZEVnWHAVDUIsJxMv + EBhJFD4FNHphaTUa TRJbfgVJcANIexZF O1F6ACIKLwdSbGoL + FQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpg Cj0NIBoUTEsHVjA7 XVgGFC8gEFdNTSE0 JB89Ql4B +X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706 +X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) +X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 71.247.144.172/587 +X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own + anti-virus system. +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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@lists.linuxfoundation.org +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks +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: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:36:39 -0000 + + +--gj572EiMnwbLXET9 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii +Content-Disposition: inline +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 08:18:07PM +0100, Ross Nicoll wrote: +> I'd argue that at the point where there's consistently more +> transactions than the network can handle, there are two significant +> risks. Firstly, that people don't care enough to pay the transaction +> fees required to get their transaction prioritised over another's, +> and secondly that as transactions start outright failing (which will +> happen with enough transactions backlogged) the network is +> considered unreliable, the currency illiquid, and there's a virtual +> "bank rush" to get into a more usable currency. + +The supply and demand fee market means that there is a range of +reliability levels depending on what fee you pay; regardless of how high +demand is if you pay a sufficiently high fee that outbids less +important/lower fee transactions you'll get reliable transaction +confirmaiton. + +The perceived lack of reliability is a function of the poor state of +wallet software, not an inherent problem with the system. Fixing that +software is much easier and much less risky than any hard-fork ever will +be. + +=46rom my article on transaction fees during the CoinWallet.eu flood: + +What needs to be done +=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D + +Transaction fees aren't going away, blocksize increase or not. CoinWallet.e= +u is +only spending $5k flooding the network; even an 8MB blocksize increase can = +only +raise the cost of that attack to $40k, which is still very affordable. For +instance an attacker looking to manipulate the Bitcoin price could probably +afford to spend $40k doing it with the right trading strategy; let alone +governments, banks, big businesses, criminal enterprises, etc. to whom $40k= + is +chump-change. Wallets need to become smarter about fees, as does the rest of +the Bitcoin community. + +What we need to do: + +* Add fee/KB displays to block explorers. + +* Change wallets to calculate and set fees in fee/KB rather than fixed fees= + regardless of tx size. + +* Make websites with easy to understand displays of what the current mempool + backlog is, and what fee/KB is needed to get to the front of the queue. W= +e've + done a great job for Bitcoin price charts, let's extend that to transacti= +on + fees. + +* Add the ability to set any fee/KB to wallets, rather than be stuck with + predefined options that may not be high enough. + +* Add support for fee-bumping via (FSS)-RBF to wallets and Bitcoin Core. + +Capacity limits are just a fact of life in the design of the Bitcoin protoc= +ol, +but that doesn't mean we can't give users the tools to deal with them +intelligently. + +-https://gist.github.com/petertodd/8e87c782bdf342ef18fb + +--=20 +'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org +0000000000000000007fc13ce02072d9cb2a6d51fae41fefcde7b3b283803d24 + +--gj572EiMnwbLXET9 +Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" +Content-Description: Digital signature + +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- + +iQGrBAEBCACVBQJVjam7XhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw +MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDdmYzEzY2UwMjA3MmQ5Y2IyYTZkNTFmYWU0MWZlZmNk +ZTdiM2IyODM4MDNkMjQvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 +ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQwIXyHOf0udwPoAf/dUbFztm/OwfokDUhxZKsKfaK +7hUfggmk7HGk45C5cWcv50U2akqH25B8NQdjSlVDyK5X7xVxop4zd3Qvh6GeKTnK +QgZg21TqMZNptxh8EhNFvWhExUjsatlaAh59ZEn+72GUdnVBbpKftuX8BJOHRKg8 +KlbM4tCA+JlOFi81bGShEbhZOtGP2GBW9AJwBDDW274+qN9f11be7UX6kvN2xORB +ynN3pSMJ+B/n2bdSvSXwaiDggv3QpvsIAkvEQvAUVxEsVdcDUjLTQYnqfx/TXtD6 +cqwMtxHyiLJOEILU9unmk3y8k56g+lLl8K31oTlrsdXcffS8OPK3ZXqkmFyOIg== +=nV/7 +-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- + +--gj572EiMnwbLXET9-- + |