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
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
|
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 7578B899
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:52:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com (mail-wi0-f171.google.com
[209.85.212.171])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87C78A8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:51:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so104565800wic.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 12 Aug 2015 01:51:58 -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=rTl68CpEQkjxI/m6gmisWWD7QJVWh9nBTSlnMZwYarY=;
b=I4RmFya0xkJ/LWGIOKsafcvG87vC0qEK8tM+h9qNY4B5xm1wMAST+cOTdlpYCJ/Gmm
BB6OAuoIeeIjtMf8mxppuyhcDoJlthgws0RgO5fzcCyJno99pSTpViB5KnkV8G7oKw2D
2H0AIP1gMWR2raXzgJL9clwGeIDQUpwHng15NSLdc/nQ4Kj+zRQqbKAToV8uC3L1G/pA
ii3On2CIfN9gEKcsJx0HM+kkgVzlk/Shpe4boiWOVpete03JKtqlJcuVpXCPYLw53Zpw
Dt/7qPT3LTy7FRwHZ2W3aHIHUNzCYQWDmWaMRVZQ8W4jT2A8e51pSkVxueH+2wsvuUpt
onsQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmTyuTiGebjrwgrCkj5mA0vd2AomSrLq1i9JwDD5Iyig25TaX9y5mjK/byXgyZAFwxAwumn
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.120.198 with SMTP id le6mr65394212wjb.133.1439369518083;
Wed, 12 Aug 2015 01:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 01:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 01:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1679272.aDpruqxXDP@coldstorage>
References: <CABsx9T16fH+56isq95m4+QWsKwP==tf75ep8ghnEcBoV4OtZJA@mail.gmail.com>
<8181630.GdAj0CPZYc@coldstorage>
<CABm2gDp2svO2G5bHs5AcjjN8dmP6P5nv0xriWez-pvzs2oBL5w@mail.gmail.com>
<1679272.aDpruqxXDP@coldstorage>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:51:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDr98G1K1F7YapCQbKtQ2YEsW8FrYVnFtk+M2Hfvy4WgfQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Thomas Zander <zander32@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01160002d3e93d051d1954f8
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: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:52:00 -0000
--089e01160002d3e93d051d1954f8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Aug 11, 2015 11:44 PM, "Thomas Zander" <zander32@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 11. August 2015 19.47.56 Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote:
> > On Aug 11, 2015 12:14 AM, "Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev"
> > > See my various emails in the last hour.
> >
> > I've read them. I have read gavin's blog posts as well, several times.
> > I still don't see what else can we fear from not increasing the size
apart
> > from fees maybe rising and making some problems that need to be solved
> > rewardless of the size more visible
>
> []
And again, you dodge the question...
> > This discussion is frustrating for everyone. I could also say "This hav=
e
> > been explained many times" and similar things, but that's not
productive.
> > I'm not trying to be obstinate, please, answer what else is to fear or
> > admit that all your feas are just potential consequences of rising fees=
.
>
> Since you replied to me;
>
> I have to admit I find that a little depressing.
> I put forward about 10 reasons in the last 24 hours and all you remember
is
> something with fees. Which, thats the funny part, I never wrote as being
a
> problem directly.
It's not that I don't remember, it's that for all your "reasons" I can
always say one of these:
1) This could only be an indirect consequence of rising fees (people will
move to a competitive system, cheap transactions will become unreliable,
etc).
2) This problem will appear with other sizes too and it needs to be solved
permanently no matter what (dumb mempool design, true scalability, etc)
> > With the risk of sounding condescending or aggressive...Really, is not
that
> > hard to answer questions directly and succinctly.
>
> I would really like to avoid putting blame. I'd like to avoid the FUD
> accusation and calling people paranoid, even yourself, sounds rather bad
> too...
>
> Personally I think its a bad idea to do write the way you do, which is
that
> some people have to prove that bad things will happen if we don't make a
> certain change. It polarizes the discussion and puts people into camps.
People
> have to choose sides.
Whatever, even suggesting you may want to just spread fud and that's why
you don't respond directly to the questions made you respond directly to
the question: you answered with "[]".
I just give up trying that people worried about a non-increase in the short
term answer to me that question. I will internally think that they just
want to spread fud, but not vey vocal about it.
It's just seems strange to me that you don't want to prove to me that's not
the case when it is so easy to do so: just answer the d@#/&m question.
> Everyone knows that bigger blocks doesn't solve the scalability problem.
I'm not so sure, people keep talking about the need to scale the system by
increasing the consensus maximum...
But I'm happy that, indeed, many (possibly most?) people understand this.
> Everyone knows that you can't get substantial growth using lightning or
higher
> fees in, say, the next 12 months.
I disagree with this.
In any case, how can future demand be easier to predict than software
development times?
--089e01160002d3e93d051d1954f8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On Aug 11, 2015 11:44 PM, "Thomas Zander" <<a href=3D"mailto:z=
ander32@gmail.com">zander32@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Tuesday 11. August 2015 19.47.56 Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote:<br>
> > On Aug 11, 2015 12:14 AM, "Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev&quo=
t;<br>
> > > See my various emails in the last hour.<br>
> ><br>
> > I've read them. I have read gavin's blog posts as well, s=
everal times.<br>
> > I still don't see what else can we fear from not increasing t=
he size apart<br>
> > from fees maybe rising and making some problems that need to be s=
olved<br>
> > rewardless of the size more visible<br>
><br>
> []</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">And again, you dodge the question...</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">> > This discussion is frustrating for everyone. I cou=
ld also say "This have<br>
> > been explained many times" and similar things, but that'=
s not productive.<br>
> > I'm not trying to be obstinate, please, answer what else is t=
o fear or<br>
> > admit that all your feas are just potential consequences of risin=
g fees.<br>
><br>
> Since you replied to me;<br>
><br>
> I have to admit I find that a little depressing.<br>
> I put forward about 10 reasons in the last 24 hours and all you rememb=
er is<br>
> something with fees.=C2=A0 Which, thats the funny part, I never wrote =
as being a<br>
> problem directly.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">It's not that I don't remember, it's that for al=
l your "reasons" I can always say one of these:</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">1) This could only be an indirect consequence of rising fees=
(people will move to a competitive system, cheap transactions will become =
unreliable, etc).<br>
2) This problem will appear with other sizes too and it needs to be solved =
permanently no matter what (dumb mempool design, true scalability, etc)<br>=
</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">> > With the risk of sounding condescending or aggress=
ive...Really, is not that<br>
> > hard to answer questions directly and succinctly.<br>
><br>
> I would really like to avoid putting blame. I'd like to avoid the =
FUD<br>
> accusation and calling people paranoid, even yourself, sounds rather b=
ad<br>
> too...<br>
><br>
> Personally I think its a bad idea to do write the way you do, which is=
that<br>
> some people have to prove that bad things will happen if we don't =
make a<br>
> certain change. It polarizes the discussion and puts people into camps=
. People<br>
> have to choose sides.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Whatever, even suggesting you may want to just spread fud an=
d that's why you don't respond directly to the questions made you r=
espond directly to the question: you answered with "[]".<br>
I just give up trying that people worried about a non-increase in the short=
term answer to me that question. I will internally think that they just wa=
nt to spread fud, but not vey vocal about it.<br>
It's just seems strange to me that you don't want to prove to me th=
at's not the case when it is so easy to do so: just answer the d@#/&=
;m question.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">> Everyone knows that bigger blocks doesn't solve the=
scalability problem.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I'm not so sure, people keep talking about the need to s=
cale the system by increasing the consensus maximum...<br>
But I'm happy that, indeed, many (possibly most?) people understand thi=
s.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">> Everyone knows that you can't get substantial growt=
h using lightning or higher<br>
> fees in, say, the next 12 months.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I disagree with this.<br>
In any case, how can future demand be easier to predict than software devel=
opment times?</p>
--089e01160002d3e93d051d1954f8--
|
