Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc> Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9F1774 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:55:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com (mail-wi0-f182.google.com [209.85.212.182]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06762118 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:55:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicne3 with SMTP id ne3so25496210wic.0 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 07:55:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=u6bubGc0cr2HYUv6EAd8IVpB4HXyWxp/vAjL5V1X640=; b=QvRmu1029sgNDsjccXnUpoCHpVPtcDAzTNHF4zJ1uug6G2cbeW/qch6itrbrI6ek/W 3HhE9y0Calxgcah1GUpvgX39307V5Db70p55L0t7lxU3lq7xbXi/Mxi8bC/BldUxGKsI aNVGxItfBvla42YIPW3fiv1B+wVkfoVFih5QrQJ6W1HZhyjKOBGflgIuSwhDOONDs6QZ lpW9zpMfTWSkdE0pgzZ/+885vOFzR4WAkUMIyYUtgSUTlQCziXZgBVayLjVOMhlrJOe9 SatG/lKXpKLVf6OXMOdOYIPkurcLCKGSCStdqwGyeYWdMrwqzNADd0XxqJM3ObD1qafI cxtw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmUWPckjQc7r4eKPEkUkLT015PoAmlP/FLgZv6ItJtfsq/1FgmbbHTRuXePaTo8XjIKbzIg MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.120.198 with SMTP id le6mr44728303wjb.133.1439218540432; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 07:55:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 07:55:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 07:55:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2aZHe5382_fC7bEG2OFPadS3p0jjaAD8FW7p36XS7tcA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CABsx9T16fH+56isq95m4+QWsKwP==tf75ep8ghnEcBoV4OtZJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPg+sBgOt=qhQVZv5P-4mcD75=L4PKgOfRqhyB6FZdSYQajrwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABsx9T10y6-=c7Qg6jysnf38wRX3NA3wWozxGfE+mEYJvPeqWA@mail.gmail.com> <CABm2gDpwMQzju+Gsoe3qMi60MPr7OAiSuigy3RdA1xh-SwFzbw@mail.gmail.com> <CABsx9T2aZHe5382_fC7bEG2OFPadS3p0jjaAD8FW7p36XS7tcA@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:55:40 +0200 Message-ID: <CABm2gDqokER8=1PRW6u76BK4BgpDQZgbPw5_2HZztG1j6Mxg8A@mail.gmail.com> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc> To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01160002db76c3051cf62dea X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:55:43 -0000 --089e01160002db76c3051cf62dea Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Aug 10, 2015 4:12 PM, "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote= : >> >> >> On Aug 7, 2015 5:55 PM, "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote= : > Executive summary: when networks get over-saturated, they become unreliable. Unreliable is bad. > > Unreliable and expensive is extra bad, and that's where we're headed without an increase to the max block size. I'm not trying to be obstinate but I seriously can't see how they are different. When you say unreliable I think you mean "unreliable for cheap fee transactions". Transactions with the highest fees will always confirm reliably. For example, a 1 btc fee tx will probably always confirm very reliably even if capacity never increases and demands increases a lot. --089e01160002db76c3051cf62dea Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <p dir=3D"ltr"><br> On Aug 10, 2015 4:12 PM, "Gavin Andresen" <<a href=3D"mailto:g= avinandresen@gmail.com">gavinandresen@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> ><br> > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc&= gt; wrote:<br> >><br> >><br> >> On Aug 7, 2015 5:55 PM, "Gavin Andresen" <<a href=3D"= mailto:gavinandresen@gmail.com">gavinandresen@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> > Executive summary: when networks get over-saturated, they become unrel= iable.=C2=A0 Unreliable is bad.<br> ><br> > Unreliable and expensive is extra bad, and that's where we're = headed without an increase to the max block size.</p> <p dir=3D"ltr">I'm not trying to be obstinate but I seriously can't= see how they are different.<br> When you say unreliable I think you mean "unreliable for cheap fee tra= nsactions". Transactions with the highest fees will always confirm rel= iably. For example, a 1 btc fee tx will probably always confirm very reliab= ly even if capacity never increases and demands increases a lot.<br> </p> --089e01160002db76c3051cf62dea--