path: root/95/62260c3c6884bea6bcabaadd214282f3ae2512

Return-Path: <mickeybob@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC06888B
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:39:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com (mail-wi0-f170.google.com
	[209.85.212.170])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AAF77D
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:39:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wijp15 with SMTP id p15so193686436wij.0
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:39:34 -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=OeNkRhdd12PkbvjwRQtMqf+/SlGHiGTKRj8SMCIyUTs=;
	b=A6o54NQqpo+f0NPEhWupt9YbhYTWyOb16JT3biR6FYIvL3f/vIhEtPdn+WKAkoWN3v
	0kcxqffNB8zE9XkJgUBzn4xSni+fx6YFzWRtgA/X0G75Zc5SuW2kzE/8pGqvv8WEUp1i
	LUqGMtizoPtFv4I0RpmgU5oIcsUjh2nmCezJXqcGnAU1fk3HCwm0O3cvYTXGgk7doFFK
	7TeK7DU+Zue1EzxGp7/1ABJls2JU+NhCVYJ+dRVnBAyvHyvm0izN5ArpToYcllmnU3+i
	iHW6sXii6Ru7RL81rDWiQnLkelRXqiJpmApPyBsCnUwWjPCg/HV2ZAvmhGc14BQycWWb
	OX+A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.83.70 with SMTP id o6mr60019960wjy.44.1439329174035;
	Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.27.78.207 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:39:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTHpFfOWa897+NX5bwjPb5Ayoqswkbwp5n+S+4vAV-VMpg@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>
	<CALqxMTHpFfOWa897+NX5bwjPb5Ayoqswkbwp5n+S+4vAV-VMpg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:39:33 -0500
Message-ID: <CALgxB7tDex3JMfGUta=sedqqO2f5+Nb0X6-0msFdD28Wv7v26w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb04ade222572051d0ff016
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 <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 21:39:36 -0000

--047d7bb04ade222572051d0ff016
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Sure, most people probably would be happy with cheaper off-chain systems.
There already are and will probably continue to be more transactions
happening off-chain partly for this very reason. That's not the issue we're
trying to address though: The main chain is the lynch-pin to the whole
system. We've got to do a good job meeting demand that people have for
wanting to utilize the main-chain, or else we'll risk being replaced by
some other main-chain solution that does it better.

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
>

--047d7bb04ade222572051d0ff016
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Sure, most people probably would be happy with cheaper off=
-chain systems. There already are and will probably continue to be more tra=
nsactions happening off-chain partly for this very reason. That&#39;s not t=
he issue we&#39;re trying to address though: The main chain is the lynch-pi=
n to the whole system. We&#39;ve got to do a good job meeting demand that p=
eople have for wanting to utilize the main-chain, or else we&#39;ll risk be=
ing replaced by some other main-chain solution that does it better.</div><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 11, 201=
5 at 4:34 PM, Adam Back <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:adam@cypher=
space.org" target=3D"_blank">adam@cypherspace.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">So if they dont care about decentralisation,=
 they&#39;ll be happy using<br>
cheaper off-chain systems, right?<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
Adam<br>
</font></span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
On 11 August 2015 at 22:30, Angel Leon &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gubatron@gmail=
.com">gubatron@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; tell that to people in poor countries, or even in first world countrie=
s. The<br>
&gt; competitive thing here is a deal breaker for a lot of people who have =
no<br>
&gt; clue/don&#39;t care for decentralization, they just want to send money=
 from A to<br>
&gt; B, like email.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"http://twitter.com/gubatron" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_=
blank">http://twitter.com/gubatron</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev<br>
&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-d=
ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; I dont think Bitcoin being cheaper is the main characteristic of<b=
r>
&gt;&gt; Bitcoin.=C2=A0 I think the interesting thing is trustlessness - be=
ing able<br>
&gt;&gt; to transact without relying on third parties.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Adam<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; On 11 August 2015 at 22:18, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev<br>
&gt;&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitco=
in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; The only reason why Bitcoin has grown the way it has, and in =
fact the<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; only<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; reason why we&#39;re all even here on this mailing list talki=
ng about this,<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; is<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; because Bitcoin is growing, since it&#39;s &quot;better money=
 than other money&quot;.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; One<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; of the key characteristics toward that is Bitcoin being inexp=
ensive to<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; transact. If that characteristic is no longer true, then Bitc=
oin isn&#39;t<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; going<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; to grow, and in fact Bitcoin itself will be replaced by bette=
r money<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; that is<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; less expensive to transfer.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; So the importance of this issue cannot be overstated -- it&#3=
9;s compete or<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; die<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; for Bitcoin -- because people want to transact with global co=
nsensus at<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; high<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; volume, and because technology exists to service that want, t=
hen it&#39;s<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; going<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; to be met. This is basic rules of demand and supply. I don&#3=
9;t necessarily<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; disagree with your position on only wanting to support uncont=
roversial<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; commits, but I think it&#39;s important to get consensus on t=
he criticality<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; of<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; the block size issue: do you agree, disagree, or not take a s=
ide, and<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; why?<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Pieter Wuille &lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com">pieter.wuille@gmail.com</a>&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Michael Naber via bitcoi=
n-dev<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.o=
rg">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; Hitting the limit in and of itself is not necessarily=
 a bad thing. The<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; question at hand is whether we should constrain that =
limit below what<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; technology is capable of delivering. I&#39;m arguing =
that not only we<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; should<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; not, but that we could not even if we wanted to, sinc=
e competition<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; will<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; deliver capacity for global consensus whether it&#39;=
s in Bitcoin or in<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; some<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; other product / fork.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; The question is not what the technology can deliver. The =
question is<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; what<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; price we&#39;re willing to pay for that. It is not a bool=
ean &quot;at this size,<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; things break, and below it, they work&quot;. A small cons=
tant factor<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; increase<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; will unlikely break anything in the short term, but it wi=
ll come with<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; higher<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; centralization pressure of various forms. There is discus=
sion about<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; whether<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; these centralization pressures are significant, but citin=
g that it&#39;s<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; artificially constrained under the limit is IMHO a misrep=
resentation.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; It is<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; constrained to aim for a certain balance between utility =
and risk, and<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; neither extreme is interesting, while possibly still &quo=
t;working&quot;.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Consensus rules are what keeps the system together. You c=
an&#39;t simply<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; switch to new rules on your own, because the rest of the =
system will<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; end up<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; ignoring you. These rules are there for a reason. You and=
 I may agree<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; about<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; whether the 21M limit is necessary, and disagree about wh=
ether we need<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; a<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; block size limit, but we should be extremely careful with=
 change. My<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; position as Bitcoin Core developer is that we should merg=
e consensus<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; changes<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; only when they are uncontroversial. Even when you believe=
 a more<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; invasive<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; change is worth it, others may disagree, and the risk fro=
m disagreement<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; is<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; likely larger than the effect of a small block size incre=
ase by itself:<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; the<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; risk that suddenly every transaction can be spent twice (=
once on each<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; side<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; of the fork), the very thing that the block chain was des=
igned to<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; prevent.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; My personal opinion is that we should aim to do a block s=
ize increase<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; for<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; the right reasons. I don&#39;t think fear of rising fees =
or unreliability<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; should<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; be an issue: if fees are being paid, it means someone is =
willing to pay<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; them. If people are doing transactions despite being unre=
liable, there<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; must<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; be a use for them. That may mean that some use cases don&=
#39;t fit anymore,<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; but<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; that is already the case.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; --<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Pieter<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitc=
oin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo=
/bitcoin-dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfound=
ation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt;&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-d=
ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc=
oin-dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation=
.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--047d7bb04ade222572051d0ff016--