summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/07/4a7973945517f9d7d3222423631f44bab9c734
blob: 239ddf19785700b6a814017a696cdaa574fd7b51 (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1XavkR-0004yV-Lm
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 06 Oct 2014 00:01:55 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.213.169 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.213.169; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ig0-f169.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ig0-f169.google.com ([209.85.213.169])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1XavkO-0006OQ-92
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 06 Oct 2014 00:01:55 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f169.google.com with SMTP id uq10so4315503igb.4
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Sun, 05 Oct 2014 17:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.51.17.66 with SMTP id gc2mr16971727igd.40.1412553706940;
	Sun, 05 Oct 2014 17:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.168.5 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Oct 2014 17:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKJtGK2hdO+eTv6Hf9OhdetMmgTARHwQmmdEt_K489QFJOatPA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5431CD8D.7050508@certimix.com>
	<CAAS2fgQ-MrmBGjcuqYdvfs0g2b6+vAOVR3sUCCyQy386CY8EDA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKJtGK2hdO+eTv6Hf9OhdetMmgTARHwQmmdEt_K489QFJOatPA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 17:01:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSRnnjPdW0oHCkE=deLLv8w0z0syGeeXjb1EaF1xLrtJQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@blockstream.io>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1XavkO-0006OQ-92
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Freeze on Transaction Attack
	(FRONT)
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 00:01:55 -0000

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@blockstream.io> wr=
ote:
> In any case, it is interesting to think about this things since mining
> subsidies will eventually disappear and then transaction fees will
> ALWAYS be higher than subsidies.

You can imagine that instead of subsidy Bitcoin came with a initial
set of nlocktimed transactions that pay fees, one block at a time, for
each block from the start until the subsidy goes away.

Perhaps that mental model might make it clear why some people think
that the nlocked transactions and the block size being lower than the
instant offered demand (there is always a backlog) are both things
which address the concern of this thread. :)