path: root/d0/50dc402cbb3d988c5352e8506804bed65f601f

Return-Path: <gubatron@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A647997
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:14:29 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f174.google.com (mail-io0-f174.google.com
	[209.85.223.174])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0648A191
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:14:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ioii16 with SMTP id i16so195652444ioi.0
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 11 Aug 2015 02:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
	:cc:content-type;
	bh=/CrSJgeMPrRnaFcsEQ54L0U4eqxBDh4nctdLkFosWs0=;
	b=NJ2xgxmT2su8tsuHxVWJtcGLwlCrlK9VS+h2ukrFxJrjwoN9r/m3PiUqN7AuzwUAzR
	Rb8TXAcIlnQPhKhM+niPUipKObFNTzh3IJjWNvOuzuqZ124l7GfuwV7t8Gxk1VVt26qL
	F7jlLIiHl7f4mkM2mPgsWsesKtczDNGOpW0/dyhbrPcoWFuxd2n09LlCqsid7JrUYaxf
	FHTaIWxhcl+mAQfIyjMDVckaCLml4LZFwfK6qjF5UkymBbdyE3NC3bkOGriT5wIVSBoE
	GJl5jcL/JsKNdH7rkg3/GphOuJ/6MRT+hrscGqip0jZXNt914iNPPaoQ8FF+ITlR9nkT
	x+cg==
X-Received: by 10.107.169.138 with SMTP id f10mr25074959ioj.75.1439284467144; 
	Tue, 11 Aug 2015 02:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.36.122.144 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 02:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150811083806.4689995.85497.4220@thomaszander.se>
References: <CABsx9T16fH+56isq95m4+QWsKwP==tf75ep8ghnEcBoV4OtZJA@mail.gmail.com>
	<2547793.e4fEoOQyIR@coldstorage>
	<CAOG=w-thKPQUPx_ev3qzgkHjBfF3f_6EtFWq3QJdw1fETdnzhA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1623892.Xps1bl6nlD@coldstorage>
	<CAOG=w-u7KwhTg1b-WvD97ZY5oBbvLBdsOGLedS=fx1fBw_hZ8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150811083806.4689995.85497.4220@thomaszander.se>
From: Angel Leon <gubatron@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 05:14:07 -0400
Message-ID: <CADZB0_a93oDAEro-6h6UZprVyvRUTaB_tzggU8WUWKGJjbLeRw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Zander <thomas@thomaszander.se>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11425d066521d6051d05874d
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 09:14:29 -0000

--001a11425d066521d6051d05874d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

- policy neutrality.
- It can't be censored.
- it can't be shut down
- and the rules cannot change from underneath you.

except it can be shutdown the minute it actually gets used by its inability
to scale.

what's the point of having all this if nobody can use it?
what's the point of going through all that energy and CO2 for a mere 24,000
transactions an hour?

It's clear that it's just a matter of time before it collapses.

Here's a simple proposal (concept) that doesn't pretend to set a fixed
block size limit as you can't ever know the demands the future will bring
https://gist.github.com/gubatron/143e431ee01158f27db4

We don't need to go as far as countries with hyper inflation trying to use
the technology to make it collapse, anybody here who has distributed
commercial/free end user software knows that any small company out there
installs more copies in a couple weeks than all the bitcoin users we have
at the moment, all we need is a single company/project with a decent amount
of users who are now enabled to transact directly on the blockchain to
screw it all up (perhaps OpenBazaar this winter could make this whole thing
come down, hopefully they'll take this debate and the current limitations
before their release, and boy are they coding nonstop on it now that they
got funded), the last of your fears should be a malicious government trying
to shut you down, for that to happen you must make an impact first, for now
this is a silly game in the grand scheme of things.

And you did sound pretty bad, all of his points were very valid and they
share the concern of many people, many investors, entrepreneurs putting
shitload of money, time and their lives on a much larger vision than that
of a network that does a mere 3,500 tx/hour, but some people seem to be
able to live in impossible or useless ideals.

It's simply irresponsible to not want to give the network a chance to grow
a bit more. Miners centralizing is inevitable given the POW based
consensus, hobbists-mining is only there for countries with very cheap
energy.

If things remain this way, this whole thing will be a massive failure and
it will probably take another decade before we can open our mouths about
cryptocurrencies, decentralization and what not, and this stubornness will
be the one policy that censored everyone, that shutdown everyone, that made
the immutable rules not matter.

Perhaps it will be Stellar what ends up delivering at this stubborn pace.

http://twitter.com/gubatron

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:38 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> >It follows then, that if we make a decision now which destroys that
> property, which makes it possible to censor bitcoin, to deny service, or to
> pressure miners into changing rules contrary to user interests, then
> Bitcoin is no longer interesting.
>
> You asked to be convinced of the need for bigger blocks. I gave that.
> What makes you think bitcoin will break when more people use it?
>
> Sent on the go, excuse the brevity.
> *From: *Mark Friedenbach
> *Sent: *Tuesday, 11 August 2015 08:10
> *To: *Thomas Zander
> *Cc: *Bitcoin Dev
> *Subject: *Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Monday 10. August 2015 23.03.39 Mark Friedenbach wrote:
>> > This is where things diverge. It's fine to pick a new limit or growth
>> > trajectory. But defend it with data and reasoned analysis.
>>
>> We currently serve about 0,007% of the world population sending maybe one
>> transaction a month.
>> This can only go up.
>>
>> There are about 20 currencies in the world that are unstable and showing
>> early
>> signs of hyperinflation. If even small percentage of these people
>> cash-out and
>> get Bitcoins for their savings you'd have the amount of people using
>> Bitcoin
>> as savings go from maybe half a million to 10 million in the space of a
>> couple
>> of months. Why so fast? Because all the world currencies are linked.
>> Practically all currencies follow the USD, and while that one may stay
>> robust
>> and standing, the linkage has been shown in the past to cause
>> chain-effects.
>>
>> It is impossible to predict how much uptake Bitcoin will take, but we have
>> seen big rises in price as Cyprus had a bailin and then when Greece first
>> showed bad signs again.
>> Lets do our due diligence and agree that in the current world economy
>> there
>> are sure signs that people are considering Bitcoin on a big scale.
>>
>> Bigger amount of people holding Bitcoin savings won't make the transaction
>> rate go up very much, but if you have feet on the ground you already see
>> that
>> people go back to barter in countries like Poland, Ireland, Greece etc.
>> And Bitcoin will be an alternative to good to ignore.  Then transaction
>> rates
>> will go up. Dramatically.
>>
>> If you are asking for numbers, that is a bit tricky. Again; we are at
>> 0,007%... Thats like a f-ing rounding error in the world economy. You
>> can't
>> reason from that. Its like using a float to do calculations that you
>> should
>> have done in a double and getting weird output.
>>
>> Bottom line is that a maximum size of 8Mb blocks is not that odd. Because
>> a 20
>> times increase is very common in a "company" that is about 6 years old.
>> For instance Android was about that age when it started to get shipped by
>> non-
>> Google companies. There the increase was substantially bigger and the
>> company
>> backing it was definitely able to change direction faster than the Bitcoin
>> oiltanker can change direction.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Another metric to remember; if you follow hackernews (well, the incubator
>> more
>> than the linked articles) you'd be exposed to the thinking of these
>> startups.
>> Their only criteria is growth. and this is rather substantial growth. Like
>> 150% per month.  Naturally, most of these build on top of html or other
>> existing technologies.  But the point is that exponential growth is
>> expected
>> in any startup.  They typically have a much much more agressive timeline,
>> though. Every month instead of every year.
>> Having exponential growth in the blockchain is really not odd and even if
>> we
>> have LN or sidechains or the next changetip, this space will be used. And
>> we
>> will still have scarcity.
>
>
> I'm sorry, I really don't want to sound like a jerk, but not a single word
> of that mattered. Yes we all want Bitcoin to scale such that every person
> in the world can use it without difficulty. However if that were all that
> we cared about then I would be remiss if I did not point out that there are
> plenty of better, faster, and cheaper solutions to finding global consensus
> over a payment ledger than Bitcoin. Architectures which are algorithmically
> superior in their scaling properties. Indeed they are already implemented
> and you can use them today:
>
> https://www.stellar.org/
> http://opentransactions.org/
>
> So why do I work on Bitcoin, and why do I care about the outcome of this
> debate? Because Bitcoin offers one thing, and one thing only which
> alternative architectures fundamentally lack: policy neutrality. It can't
> be censored, it can't be shut down, and the rules cannot change from
> underneath you. *That* is what Bitcoin offers that can't be replicated at
> higher scale with a SQL database and an audit log.
>
> It follows then, that if we make a decision now which destroys that
> property, which makes it possible to censor bitcoin, to deny service, or to
> pressure miners into changing rules contrary to user interests, then
> Bitcoin is no longer interesting. We might as well get rid of mining at
> that point and make Bitcoin look like Stellar or Open-Transactions because
> at least then we'd scale even better and not be pumping millions of tons of
> CO2 into the atmosphere from running all those ASICs.
>
> On the other side, 3Tb harddrives are sold, which take 8Mb blocks without
>> problems.
>>
>
> Straw man, storage is not an issue.
>
>
>> You can buy broadband in every relevant country that easily supports the
>> bandwidth we need. (remember we won't jump to 8Mb in a day, it will likely
>> take at least 6 months).
>>
>
> Neither one of those assertions is clear. Keep in mind the goal is to have
> Bitcoin survive active censorship. Presumably that means being able to run
> a node even in the face of a hostile ISP or government. Furthermore, it
> means being location independent and being able to move around. In many
> places the higher the bandwidth requirements the fewer the number of ISPs
> that are available to service you, and the more visible you are.
>
> It may also be necessary to be able to run over Tor. And not just today's
> Tor which is developed, serviced, and supported by the US government, but a
> Tor or I2P that future governments have turned hostile towards and actively
> censor or repress. Or existing authoritative governments, for that matter.
> How much bandwidth would be available through those connections?
>
> It may hopefully never be necessary to operate under such constraints,
> except by freedom seeking individuals within existing totalitarian regimes.
> However the credible threat of doing so may be what keeps Bitcoin from
> being repressed in the first place. Lose the capability to go underground,
> and it will be pressured into regulation, eventually.
>
> To the second point, it has been previously pointed out that large miners
> stand to gain from larger blocks, for the same basic underlying reasons as
> selfish mining. The incentive is to increase blocks, and miners are able to
> do so at will and without cost. I would not be so certain that we wouldn't
> see large blocks sooner than that.
>
>
>> We should get the inverted bloom filters stuff (or competing products)
>> working
>> at least on a one-to-one basis so we can solve the propagation time
>> problem.
>> There frankly is a huge amount of optimization that can be done in that
>> area,
>> we don't even use locality (pingtime) to optimize distribution.
>> From my experience you can expect a 2-magnitude speedup in that same 6
>> month
>> period by focusing some research there.
>>
>
> This is basically already deployed thanks to Matt's relay network. Further
> improvements are not going to have dramatic effects.
>
>
>> Remember 8Gb/block still doesn't support VISA/Mastercard.
>>
>
> No, it doesn't. And 8GB/block is ludicrously large -- it would absolutely,
> without any doubt destroy the very nature of Bitcoin, turning it into a
> fundamentally uninteresting reincarnation of the existing financial system.
> And still be unable to compete with VISA/Mastercard.
>
> So why then the pressure to go down a route that WILL lead to failure by
> your own metrics?
>
> I humbly suggest that maybe we should play the strengths of Bitcoin
> instead -- it's trustlessness via policy neutrality.
>
> Either that, or go work on Stellar. Because that's where it's headed
> otherwise.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

--001a11425d066521d6051d05874d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">-<span style=3D"font-size:13px"> policy neutrality.=C2=A0<=
/span><div><span style=3D"font-size:13px">- It can&#39;t be censored.</span=
></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:13px">- it can&#39;t be shut down</spa=
n></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:13px">- and the rules cannot change f=
rom underneath you.<br><br></span><div>except it can be shutdown the minute=
 it actually gets used by its inability to scale.<br><br>what&#39;s the poi=
nt of having all this if nobody can use it?<br>what&#39;s the point of goin=
g through all that energy and CO2 for a mere 24,000 transactions an hour?<b=
r><br>It&#39;s clear that it&#39;s just a matter of time before it collapse=
s.<br><br>Here&#39;s a simple proposal (concept) that doesn&#39;t pretend t=
o set a fixed block size limit as you can&#39;t ever know the demands the f=
uture will bring <a href=3D"https://gist.github.com/gubatron/143e431ee01158=
f27db4">https://gist.github.com/gubatron/143e431ee01158f27db4</a> <br><br>W=
e don&#39;t need to go as far as countries with hyper inflation trying to u=
se the technology to make it collapse, anybody here who has distributed com=
mercial/free end user software knows that any small company out there insta=
lls more copies in a couple weeks than all the bitcoin users we have at the=
 moment, all we need is a single company/project with a decent amount of us=
ers who are now enabled to transact directly on the blockchain to screw it =
all up (perhaps OpenBazaar this winter could make this whole thing come dow=
n, hopefully they&#39;ll take this debate and the current limitations befor=
e their release, and boy are they coding nonstop on it now that they got fu=
nded), the last of your fears should be a malicious government trying to sh=
ut you down, for that to happen you must make an impact first, for now this=
 is a silly game in the grand scheme of things.</div><div><br>And you did s=
ound pretty bad, all of his points were very valid and they share the conce=
rn of many people, many investors, entrepreneurs putting shitload of money,=
 time and their lives on a much larger vision than that of a network that d=
oes a mere 3,500 tx/hour, but some people seem to be able to live in imposs=
ible or useless ideals.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>It&#39;s simply irre=
sponsible to not want to give the network a chance to grow a bit more. Mine=
rs centralizing is inevitable given the POW based consensus, hobbists-minin=
g is only there for countries with very cheap energy.<br><br>If things rema=
in this way, this whole thing will be a massive failure and it will probabl=
y take another decade before we can open our mouths about cryptocurrencies,=
 decentralization and what not, and this stubornness will be the one policy=
 that censored everyone, that shutdown everyone, that made the immutable ru=
les not matter.<br><br>Perhaps it will be Stellar what ends up delivering a=
t this stubborn pace.</div></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br clear=
=3D"all"><div><div class=3D"gmail_signature"><a href=3D"http://twitter.com/=
gubatron" target=3D"_blank">http://twitter.com/gubatron</a><br></div></div>
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:38 AM, Thomas Zand=
er via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@list=
s.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.=
org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D"b=
ackground-color:rgb(255,255,255);line-height:initial">                     =
                                                                 <div style=
=3D"width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,&#39;Slate Pro&#39;,sa=
ns-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,2=
55,255)"><span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif">&gt;It fol=
lows then, that if we make a decision now which destroys that property, whi=
ch makes it possible to censor bitcoin, to deny service, or to pressure min=
ers into changing rules contrary to user interests, then Bitcoin is no long=
er interesting. </span></div><div style=3D"width:100%;font-size:initial;fon=
t-family:Calibri,&#39;Slate Pro&#39;,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-a=
lign:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span style=3D"color:rgb(0,=
0,0);font-family:sans-serif"><br></span></div><div style=3D"width:100%;font=
-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,&#39;Slate Pro&#39;,sans-serif;color:rgb(=
31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span styl=
e=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif">You asked to be convinced of =
the need for bigger blocks. I gave that.</span></div><div style=3D"width:10=
0%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,&#39;Slate Pro&#39;,sans-serif;col=
or:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><sp=
an style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif">What makes you think b=
itcoin will break when more people use it?</span></div>                    =
                                                                           =
                                      <div style=3D"width:100%;font-size:in=
itial;font-family:Calibri,&#39;Slate Pro&#39;,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,12=
5);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br style=3D"displ=
ay:initial"></div>                                                         =
                                                                           =
                                                               <div style=
=3D"font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,&#39;Slate Pro&#39;,sans-serif;co=
lor:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Se=
nt=C2=A0on=C2=A0the=C2=A0go,=C2=A0excuse=C2=A0the=C2=A0brevity.=C2=A0</div>=
                                                                           =
                                                                           =
                            <table width=3D"100%" style=3D"background-color=
:white;border-spacing:0px"> <tbody><tr><td colspan=3D"2" style=3D"font-size=
:initial;text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">            =
               <div style=3D"border-style:solid none none;border-top-color:=
rgb(181,196,223);border-top-width:1pt;padding:3pt 0in 0in;font-family:Tahom=
a,&#39;BB Alpha Sans&#39;,&#39;Slate Pro&#39;;font-size:10pt">  <div><b>Fro=
m: </b>Mark Friedenbach</div><div><b>Sent: </b>Tuesday, 11 August 2015 08:1=
0</div><div><b>To: </b>Thomas Zander</div><div><b>Cc: </b>Bitcoin Dev</div>=
<div><b>Subject: </b>Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process</=
div></div></td></tr></tbody></table><div style=3D"border-style:solid none n=
one;border-top-color:rgb(186,188,209);border-top-width:1pt;font-size:initia=
l;text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"></div><br><div><div=
 dir=3D"ltr">On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-de=
v <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation=
.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span=
> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc so=
lid;padding-left:1ex"><span>On Monday 10. August <a href=3D"tel:2015%2023.0=
3.39" value=3D"+12015230339" target=3D"_blank">2015 23.03.39</a> Mark Fried=
enbach wrote:<br>
&gt; This is where things diverge. It&#39;s fine to pick a new limit or gro=
wth<br>
&gt; trajectory. But defend it with data and reasoned analysis.<br>
<br>
</span>We currently serve about 0,007% of the world population sending mayb=
e one<br>
transaction a month.<br>
This can only go up.<br>
<br>
There are about 20 currencies in the world that are unstable and showing ea=
rly<br>
signs of hyperinflation. If even small percentage of these people cash-out =
and<br>
get Bitcoins for their savings you&#39;d have the amount of people using Bi=
tcoin<br>
as savings go from maybe half a million to 10 million in the space of a cou=
ple<br>
of months. Why so fast? Because all the world currencies are linked.<br>
Practically all currencies follow the USD, and while that one may stay robu=
st<br>
and standing, the linkage has been shown in the past to cause chain-effects=
.<br>
<br>
It is impossible to predict how much uptake Bitcoin will take, but we have<=
br>
seen big rises in price as Cyprus had a bailin and then when Greece first<b=
r>
showed bad signs again.<br>
Lets do our due diligence and agree that in the current world economy there=
<br>
are sure signs that people are considering Bitcoin on a big scale.<br>
<br>
Bigger amount of people holding Bitcoin savings won&#39;t make the transact=
ion<br>
rate go up very much, but if you have feet on the ground you already see th=
at<br>
people go back to barter in countries like Poland, Ireland, Greece etc.<br>
And Bitcoin will be an alternative to good to ignore.=C2=A0 Then transactio=
n rates<br>
will go up. Dramatically.<br>
<br>
If you are asking for numbers, that is a bit tricky. Again; we are at<br>
0,007%... Thats like a f-ing rounding error in the world economy. You can&#=
39;t<br>
reason from that. Its like using a float to do calculations that you should=
<br>
have done in a double and getting weird output.<br>
<br>
Bottom line is that a maximum size of 8Mb blocks is not that odd. Because a=
 20<br>
times increase is very common in a &quot;company&quot; that is about 6 year=
s old.<br>
For instance Android was about that age when it started to get shipped by n=
on-<br>
Google companies. There the increase was substantially bigger and the compa=
ny<br>
backing it was definitely able to change direction faster than the Bitcoin<=
br>
oiltanker can change direction.<br>
<br>
...<br>
<br>
Another metric to remember; if you follow hackernews (well, the incubator m=
ore<br>
than the linked articles) you&#39;d be exposed to the thinking of these sta=
rtups.<br>
Their only criteria is growth. and this is rather substantial growth. Like<=
br>
150% per month.=C2=A0 Naturally, most of these build on top of html or othe=
r<br>
existing technologies.=C2=A0 But the point is that exponential growth is ex=
pected<br>
in any startup.=C2=A0 They typically have a much much more agressive timeli=
ne,<br>
though. Every month instead of every year.<br>
Having exponential growth in the blockchain is really not odd and even if w=
e<br>
have LN or sidechains or the next changetip, this space will be used. And w=
e<br>
will still have scarcity.</blockquote><div>=C2=A0<br></div><div>I&#39;m sor=
ry, I really don&#39;t want to sound like a jerk, but not a single word of =
that mattered. Yes we all want Bitcoin to scale such that every person in t=
he world can use it without difficulty. However if that were all that we ca=
red about then I would be remiss if I did not point out that there are plen=
ty of better, faster, and cheaper solutions to finding global consensus ove=
r a payment ledger than Bitcoin. Architectures which are algorithmically su=
perior in their scaling properties. Indeed they are already implemented and=
 you can use them today:<br><br><a href=3D"https://www.stellar.org/" target=
=3D"_blank">https://www.stellar.org/</a><br><a href=3D"http://opentransacti=
ons.org/" target=3D"_blank">http://opentransactions.org/</a><br><br></div><=
div>So why do I work on Bitcoin, and why do I care about the outcome of thi=
s debate? Because Bitcoin offers one thing, and one thing only which altern=
ative architectures fundamentally lack: policy neutrality. It can&#39;t be =
censored, it can&#39;t be shut down, and the rules cannot change from under=
neath you. *That* is what Bitcoin offers that can&#39;t be replicated at hi=
gher scale with a SQL database and an audit log.<br><br></div><div>It follo=
ws then, that if we make a decision now which destroys that property, which=
 makes it possible to censor bitcoin, to deny service, or to pressure miner=
s into changing rules contrary to user interests, then Bitcoin is no longer=
 interesting. We might as well get rid of mining at that point and make Bit=
coin look like Stellar or Open-Transactions because at least then we&#39;d =
scale even better and not be pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmos=
phere from running all those ASICs.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pa=
dding-left:1ex">

On the other side, 3Tb harddrives are sold, which take 8Mb blocks without<b=
r>
problems.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Straw man, storage is not an issue.<br></d=
iv><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">You can buy broadband in=
 every relevant country that easily supports the<br>
bandwidth we need. (remember we won&#39;t jump to 8Mb in a day, it will lik=
ely<br>
take at least 6 months).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Neither one of=
 those assertions is clear. Keep in mind the goal is to have Bitcoin surviv=
e active censorship. Presumably that means being able to run a node even in=
 the face of a hostile ISP or government. Furthermore, it means being locat=
ion independent and being able to move around. In many places the higher th=
e bandwidth requirements the fewer the number of ISPs that are available to=
 service you, and the more visible you are.<br><br></div><div>It may also b=
e necessary to be able to run over Tor. And not just today&#39;s Tor which =
is developed, serviced, and supported by the US government, but a Tor or I2=
P that future governments have turned hostile towards and actively censor o=
r repress. Or existing authoritative governments, for that matter. How much=
 bandwidth would be available through those connections?<br><br></div><div>=
It may hopefully never be necessary to operate under such constraints, exce=
pt by freedom seeking individuals within existing totalitarian regimes. How=
ever the credible threat of doing so may be what keeps Bitcoin from being r=
epressed in the first place. Lose the capability to go underground, and it =
will be pressured into regulation, eventually.<br><br></div><div>To the sec=
ond point, it has been previously pointed out that large miners stand to ga=
in from larger blocks, for the same basic underlying reasons as selfish min=
ing. The incentive is to increase blocks, and miners are able to do so at w=
ill and without cost. I would not be so certain that we wouldn&#39;t see la=
rge blocks sooner than that.<br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D=
"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding=
-left:1ex">
We should get the inverted bloom filters stuff (or competing products) work=
ing<br>
at least on a one-to-one basis so we can solve the propagation time problem=
.<br>There frankly is a huge amount of optimization that can be done in tha=
t area,<br>
we don&#39;t even use locality (pingtime) to optimize distribution.<br>
From my experience you can expect a 2-magnitude speedup in that same 6 mont=
h<br>
period by focusing some research there.<br>


</blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is basically already deployed thanks =
to Matt&#39;s relay network. Further improvements are not going to have dra=
matic effects.<br>=C2=A0<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Remember=
 8Gb/block still doesn&#39;t support VISA/Mastercard.<br></blockquote><div>=
<br></div><div>No, it doesn&#39;t. And 8GB/block is ludicrously large -- it=
 would absolutely, without any doubt destroy the very nature of Bitcoin, tu=
rning it into a fundamentally uninteresting reincarnation of the existing f=
inancial system. And still be unable to compete with VISA/Mastercard.<br><b=
r></div><div>So why then the pressure to go down a route that WILL lead to =
failure by your own metrics?<br><br></div><div>I humbly suggest that maybe =
we should play the strengths of Bitcoin instead -- it&#39;s trustlessness v=
ia policy neutrality.<br><br></div><div>Either that, or go work on Stellar.=
 Because that&#39;s where it&#39;s headed otherwise.<br></div></div></div><=
/div>
<br></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a11425d066521d6051d05874d--