path: root/5c/e0e10829fd4179ccad9c62a2134e52b7347d25

Return-Path: <adam@cypherspace.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E059488B
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:34:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.197])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AA91109
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:34:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-io0-f178.google.com ([209.85.223.178]) by
	mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id
	0M8PFU-1YcPh72LdS-00vxkK for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 11 Aug 2015 23:34:47 +0200
Received: by iodt126 with SMTP id t126so1454697iod.2
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:34:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.148.8 with SMTP id w8mr35696226iod.116.1439328886915;
	Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:34:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.104.198 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:34:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADZB0_Y-ddH8-rpfrUzfG1rvmC_Jy4cr8m_mC2JtLt-LiYgd_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T16fH+56isq95m4+QWsKwP==tf75ep8ghnEcBoV4OtZJA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDpwMQzju+Gsoe3qMi60MPr7OAiSuigy3RdA1xh-SwFzbw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDoz4NMEQuQj6UHCYYCwihZrEC4Az8xDvTBwiZDf9eQ7-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<8181630.GdAj0CPZYc@coldstorage>
	<CABm2gDp2svO2G5bHs5AcjjN8dmP6P5nv0xriWez-pvzs2oBL5w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALgxB7sQM5ObxyxDiN_BOyJrgsgfQ6PAtJi52dJENfWCRKywWg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDq+2mXEN2hZY6_JYXAJX=Wxrxr6jm86P6g2YD4zzy-=Nw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALgxB7sLsod9Kb-pwxGwCtPpWXsUusDE1nJ7p4nbFMG8mDWFtg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBjGVk1jHraLZTroRneL6L1HxZ-bTGaLNwakcDSDDHqauA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALgxB7unOhWjoCcvGoCqzMnzwTL8XdJWt18kdiDSEeJ_cuiHqg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALqxMTFfUdMuNsNnx-B+SPq7HvQyA+NkvFHGVYPiFHn-ZipVJw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADZB0_Y-ddH8-rpfrUzfG1rvmC_Jy4cr8m_mC2JtLt-LiYgd_g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 22:34:46 +0100
Message-ID: <CALqxMTHpFfOWa897+NX5bwjPb5Ayoqswkbwp5n+S+4vAV-VMpg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: Angel Leon <gubatron@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:Y0nhG1yUWYNPiNyoQf6lLCyFV31cKx5G0dB2GoAJBgD9NnBhcFM
	+z+3HPXR56ARTmfKudDaeIrfMQAvkdlWxrqp/St6d33JX5WAoKnqCKXq6uS5ajD4oICQoYf
	09TSolMSz411tF0guvrabLy2UQ2WuWy/FfFrvFaaTQA3VXxFcWCsKTzrrmOAc/s/RZ4aJEs
	G65DVmJIKk9AT/4SQDQQA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:6HatTcH8wF4=:Q2uxbUoOn2PybWzFEhpZwk
	eqIVzIyOAza9USfxgZkp+K/CPUwtmxh4/2vqk5pU5DB92dMdTZMvoH8KUY2VeyQxkJ5N2Rkxp
	FTHjGB/gtHQ0OiRdUOkfAP/kFBdRy2DucEZsivljLy5QaJZygRM7JaeuzCYoRi9a29ILHzT1b
	u11YsJwTFZ+M3AtO/wQBZeUIaYuDP3OPqz6K78bXPWTbYjMnZ/sHFec4Q638afBphFBWIxHOa
	j+g8JN/wYDLkKlVVZRrST13c610G0NQgXBHsACZEIzcLfy3ch8Mo0oSperwV8nrxxDQkGLTYF
	Zfe3KaBPF7FYEzAO/ePdq4jg0BM1QokfX8vs6P2sxqUywLRGWIfI7XDN1CR6BnbzDdPnyv3n4
	dPRqIOLuZlJQ3G+0D+Sm/2orzNK9MA1tlYALJeFmyyyj3yUSQMXSDHxo1/pyFDHj6hkvQQZOF
	t91ipxMCNAkFbwfzF14UUITdmZyzL0ST/LWrx+dQNkhbxOzhd1Ec/dGzxnWaUjGSp9VGNc9FL
	BUmUG0GlY904Z97ZxyBX9Y+He99sMtJOZfPcFj4zxVj6PbouD5hM6zDdjpBRyrEY4v7/wFuCX
	OKzzO4SQgQDGol7NXUA9IBi57YhSwoo3tsDwEfSViNPb6QNOsMm3KT3FCmiuP7jUBbSFivbXJ
	G0ur6hv0fBp7Q2ey1ZktcNKxSOoo31mFHBAts6efzk5jxJ13CnnV3Pb+rtNz0OR9Nw39NAKHm
	ceS4HORrwetK7HdX
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 <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 21:34:49 -0000

So if they dont care about decentralisation, they'll be happy using
cheaper off-chain systems, right?

Adam

On 11 August 2015 at 22:30, Angel Leon <gubatron@gmail.com> wrote:
> tell that to people in poor countries, or even in first world countries. The
> competitive thing here is a deal breaker for a lot of people who have no
> clue/don't care for decentralization, they just want to send money from A to
> B, like email.
>
> http://twitter.com/gubatron
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> I dont think Bitcoin being cheaper is the main characteristic of
>> Bitcoin.  I think the interesting thing is trustlessness - being able
>> to transact without relying on third parties.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>> On 11 August 2015 at 22:18, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > The only reason why Bitcoin has grown the way it has, and in fact the
>> > only
>> > reason why we're all even here on this mailing list talking about this,
>> > is
>> > because Bitcoin is growing, since it's "better money than other money".
>> > One
>> > of the key characteristics toward that is Bitcoin being inexpensive to
>> > transact. If that characteristic is no longer true, then Bitcoin isn't
>> > going
>> > to grow, and in fact Bitcoin itself will be replaced by better money
>> > that is
>> > less expensive to transfer.
>> >
>> > So the importance of this issue cannot be overstated -- it's compete or
>> > die
>> > for Bitcoin -- because people want to transact with global consensus at
>> > high
>> > volume, and because technology exists to service that want, then it's
>> > going
>> > to be met. This is basic rules of demand and supply. I don't necessarily
>> > disagree with your position on only wanting to support uncontroversial
>> > commits, but I think it's important to get consensus on the criticality
>> > of
>> > the block size issue: do you agree, disagree, or not take a side, and
>> > why?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev
>> >> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The question is not what the technology can deliver. The question is
>> >> what
>> >> price we're willing to pay for that. It is not a boolean "at this size,
>> >> things break, and below it, they work". A small constant factor
>> >> increase
>> >> will unlikely break anything in the short term, but it will come with
>> >> higher
>> >> centralization pressure of various forms. There is discussion about
>> >> whether
>> >> these centralization pressures are significant, but citing that it's
>> >> artificially constrained under the limit is IMHO a misrepresentation.
>> >> It is
>> >> constrained to aim for a certain balance between utility and risk, and
>> >> neither extreme is interesting, while possibly still "working".
>> >>
>> >> Consensus rules are what keeps the system together. You can't simply
>> >> switch to new rules on your own, because the rest of the system will
>> >> end up
>> >> ignoring you. These rules are there for a reason. You and I may agree
>> >> about
>> >> whether the 21M limit is necessary, and disagree about whether we need
>> >> a
>> >> block size limit, but we should be extremely careful with change. My
>> >> position as Bitcoin Core developer is that we should merge consensus
>> >> changes
>> >> only when they are uncontroversial. Even when you believe a more
>> >> invasive
>> >> change is worth it, others may disagree, and the risk from disagreement
>> >> is
>> >> likely larger than the effect of a small block size increase by itself:
>> >> the
>> >> risk that suddenly every transaction can be spent twice (once on each
>> >> side
>> >> of the fork), the very thing that the block chain was designed to
>> >> prevent.
>> >>
>> >> My personal opinion is that we should aim to do a block size increase
>> >> for
>> >> the right reasons. I don't think fear of rising fees or unreliability
>> >> should
>> >> be an issue: if fees are being paid, it means someone is willing to pay
>> >> them. If people are doing transactions despite being unreliable, there
>> >> must
>> >> be a use for them. That may mean that some use cases don't fit anymore,
>> >> but
>> >> that is already the case.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Pieter
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>
>