Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A01728A7 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:56:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com (mail-wi0-f176.google.com [209.85.212.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A757109 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:56:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicne3 with SMTP id ne3so76491769wic.0 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:56:46 -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=TLum7u5/xr97pgJX8DVU0jGLAB43z7bKpeiaq81cM4Q=; b=rV6lVfb/0zTPkG8N6rCJiSy4Has7xebgg8m2cTiJYYgnKP+r7L3EbQI0IDGocn/51c A0T2e98cV3dMtyMTElcCNKmON1pOua9+3FhvVR2JatVvXRSJXmdcUIP4hLrjCI8aQNI8 6wLmi853xvjEkI53+6iU34GeTO3BvuWjmVyYrwNavC4JzXH220CD48NmaDRdhcwQ//rv o+dslAa878IsUB8CCBClb6b9TtF8iYzgMGEWgPq1Es9Awz4tnG/M9iS5NQDrHgbARkjV d3s3VQDBOWbynj3/GWyIJV6PYbWPSpuutWor0WfMOJ2CEA+zPIrWD6/WnOW0Ov1lUuJi CaYw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.20.71 with SMTP id l7mr41004369wie.32.1439326606082; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:56:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.27.78.207 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:56:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <8181630.GdAj0CPZYc@coldstorage> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:56:45 -0500 Message-ID: From: Michael Naber To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec53f2e27124d5f051d0f578c 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 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:56:48 -0000 --bcaec53f2e27124d5f051d0f578c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm not sure whether removing the limit at the protocol-level would lead to government by miners who might reject blocks which were too big, but I probably wouldn't want to take that risk. I think we should probably keep a block size limit in the protocol, but that we should increase it to be as high as "technology can provide." Toward that: I don't necessarily think that node-count in and of itself should be the metric for evaluating what technology can provide, as much as the goal that the chain be inexpensive to validate given the capabilities of present technology -- so if I can lease a server in a datacenter which can validate the chain and my total cost to do that is just a few dollars, then we're probably ok. Of course there's also the issue that we maintain enough geographic / political distribution to keep the network reliable, but I think we're far from being in danger on the reliability front. So maybe my criteria that the chain be validated at low cost is the wrong focus, but if it is than what's the appropriate criteria for deciding whether it's safe by standards of "today's technology" to raise the limit at the protocol level? On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote: > > On Aug 11, 2015 9:37 PM, "Michael Naber" wrote: > > > Hitting the limit in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. The > question at hand is whether we should constrain that limit below what > technology is capable of delivering. I'm arguing that not only we should > not, but that we could not even if we wanted to, since competition will > deliver capacity for global consensus whether it's in Bitcoin or in some > other product / fork. > > You didn't answer the 2 questions... > Anyway, if we don't care about centralization at all, we can just remove > the limit: that's what "technology can provide". > Maybe in that case it is developers who move to a decentralized > competitor... > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wr= ote: > >> > >> > >> On Aug 11, 2015 8:46 PM, "Michael Naber" wrote: > >> > > >> > Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a global consensu= s > network -- which is a network where all the participating nodes are aware > of and agree upon every transaction. Constraining Bitcoin capacity below > the limits of technology will only push users seeking to participate in a > global consensus network to other solutions which have adequate capacity, > such as BitcoinXT or others. Note that lightning / hub and spoke do not > meet requirements for users wishing to participate in global consensus, > because they are not global consensus networks, since all participating > nodes are not aware of all transactions. > >> > >> Even if you are right, first fees will raise and that will be what > pushes people to other altcoins, no? > >> Can we agree that the first step in any potentially bad situation is > hitting the limit and then fees rising as a consequence? > > > > > --bcaec53f2e27124d5f051d0f578c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm not sure whether removing the limit at the protoco= l-level would lead to government by miners who might reject blocks which we= re too big, but I probably wouldn't want to take that risk. I think we = should probably keep a block size limit in the protocol, but that we should= increase it to be as high as "technology can provide." Toward th= at: I don't necessarily think that node-count in and of itself should b= e the metric for evaluating what technology can provide, as much as the goa= l that the chain be inexpensive to validate given the capabilities of prese= nt technology -- so if I can lease a server in a datacenter which can valid= ate the chain and my total cost to do that is just a few dollars, then we&#= 39;re probably ok.=C2=A0

Of course there's also the = issue that we maintain enough geographic / political distribution to keep t= he network reliable, but I think we're far from being in danger on the = reliability front. So maybe my criteria that the chain be validated at low = cost is the wrong focus, but if it is than what's the appropriate crite= ria for deciding whether it's safe by standards of "today's te= chnology" to raise the limit at the protocol level?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at = 2:53 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:


On Aug 11, 2015 9:37 PM, "Michael Naber" <mickeybob@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hitting the limit in and of itself is not necessarily a= bad thing. The question at hand is whether we should constrain that limit = below what technology is capable of delivering. I'm arguing that not on= ly we should not, but that we could not even if we wanted to, since competi= tion will deliver capacity for global consensus whether it's in Bitcoin= or in some other product / fork.

You didn't answer the 2 questions...
Anyway, if we don't care about centralization at all, we can just remov= e the limit: that's what "technology can provide".
Maybe in that case it is developers who move to a decentralized competitor.= ..

> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <j= timon@jtimon.cc> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Aug 11, 2015 8:46 PM, "Michael Naber" <mickeybob@gmail.com> w= rote:
>> >
>> > Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a global c= onsensus network -- which is a network where all the participating nodes ar= e aware of and agree upon every transaction.=C2=A0Constraining Bitcoin capa= city below the limits of technology will only push users seeking to partici= pate in a global consensus network to other solutions which have adequate c= apacity, such as BitcoinXT or others. Note that lightning / hub and spoke d= o not meet requirements for users wishing to participate in global consensu= s, because they are not global consensus networks, since all participating = nodes are not aware of all transactions.=C2=A0
>>
>> Even if you are right, first fees will raise and that will be what= pushes people to other altcoins, no?
>> Can we agree that the first step in any potentially bad situation = is hitting the limit and then fees rising as a consequence?
>
>


--bcaec53f2e27124d5f051d0f578c--