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
|
Return-Path: <will.madden@bridge21inc.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EF3B259
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 18:08:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com (mail-io0-f172.google.com
[209.85.223.172])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B76512C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 18:07:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iodb91 with SMTP id b91so89957139iod.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from
:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references
:to; bh=2E9mCO8biJLDvXIHkJTld67UzFfuYD/5gwj3UiuZnIk=;
b=XFudLE2L+wzUhqae6aRfo22EM3GJSI4g5iPtPH0uowodZRD904YEeiWXvlTYoNZOMh
v/8j70mo4naoXkIjX9w2ZVOkjdMm2/qT8KDyMwxCVIuUOrX0fs5Lwc//2C9oyTYkO6iq
gsLWqqZ7XJ0RbgZrLLQ4zirYgm86tYYjSrj+zU0irC7Th4Oa7L/P99XgQ0j6G8MKDqf9
RmR2wizlhnB92tsrwbqgJjOaER+jCgUohAMi0rY+0hD4kLnjBoGPJ2opNFiRYB+8q2Cz
4efChKfzObMBeMkTBx0map0EpzVhYd5luwdhjo6SHWdcSPys4UISb0MrdI6wvBxSbM6V
I/Tw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk7qwnC8x24RqDhrX+jlFjqmbbgCX0UPf0h0fHZH0FDw9HpZpAdzxNG4ACNfkkeBUNW3YS9
X-Received: by 10.107.36.140 with SMTP id k134mr8122282iok.5.1440180478450;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.86] (c-73-34-122-98.hsd1.co.comcast.net.
[73.34.122.98]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
u83sm6506791iou.28.2015.08.21.11.07.57
(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\))
From: Will Madden <will.madden@bridge21inc.com>
In-Reply-To: <55D7606F.3050501@olivere.de>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:07:56 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <ABDE1ED5-F181-4F16-8210-4FAF80DD750C@bridge21inc.com>
References: <CA+1nnrk1EWd7rhwj91p1rqgGVFgOT4UYq=+Nmq41sHJYmy7YYA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgR4bsJtC99-fK1L+FsQT7vOfOpz9FOVqvAnqbpkaRJHLQ@mail.gmail.com>
<BE291934-F40A-4163-834C-6B3FFBD7C4E0@petertodd.org>
<CADJgMzucVKgQQtzwBNMcU3Vy=ae+2jMQY=am_xYXcKtyforpUg@mail.gmail.com>
<3B2A58B3-6AF6-4F1C-A6FA-7AEC97F48AD0@petertodd.org>
<CAHcfU-XrSA6p_2AJJ1W6KmatkEZdvh1W4ruA-upq4wPWoaJTNQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CADJgMzuBKauAX_tf4ZCxtErfz9Rq7ri3=8S9ZiKou6CPwP8cQw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAHcfU-U2KHmaDUvtASY5+oHE1OmEzHG8MZcx_ar6uM2oCU5Smw@mail.gmail.com>
<55D7250D.5@olivere.de>
<B9E226E5-D7E7-4DC8-BCA7-64431523F318@bridge21inc.com>
<55D7606F.3050501@olivere.de>
To: Oliver Egginger <bitcoin@olivere.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102)
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@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Core Devs : can you share your thoughts about all
BIPs on this website ?
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: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 18:08:00 -0000
I=E2=80=99m replying all just because my point was changed in your =
response.
> As a protocol Bitcoin could support millions of full nodes. What you
> talking about is the number of shareholders. But these are poorly
> determined by the block size. The number of shareholders is determined
> by many parameter but manly by the decreasing-supply algorithm. Which
> "was chosen because it approximates the rate at which commodities like
> gold are mined". See: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply
I am not talking about "shareholders=E2=80=9D who own bitcoin, or the =
supply of bitcoin at all. I=E2=80=99m talking about active users of =
bitcoin. I don=E2=80=99t care if they send 10,000 BTC, or .01 BTC, =
usage is adoption. Putting a 1MB cap on block size caps transaction =
volume, which by definition blocks adoption and use. =20
> While the decreasing-supply algorithm of Bitcoin has many advantage =
it's
> very hard to believe that the block chain will ever reach mass =
adoption.
> Even after 6 years, hardly anyone owns Bitcoins. Like Gold Bitcoin is
> distributed in large blocks to a few. Exceptions prove the rule. In =
the
> last 6 years the 1MB limit has been sufficient. I don't think that we
> will hit the 8MB limit in the next 6 years, except for stress tests =
and
> spam.
You can think what you like, but I find your position on this specious. =
You don=E2=80=99t know if we will hit that limit in the next 6 years. =
All it takes is one moderately successful application and we could be =
hitting that limit with very little warning. It could be open bazaar, =
or something else. Stating that =E2=80=9Ceven after 6 years, hardly =
anyone owns Bitcoins.=E2=80=9D as a justification that it will stay =
small doesn=E2=80=99t hold water either in terms of common sense or when =
looking at other standards evolving through history. TCP/IP was =
declared as a standard by the US Military in 1982 and became a public =
standard in 1985. Normal people didn=E2=80=99t start using TCP/IP until =
much later, when Mark Andreessen created the Mosaic internet browser, =
the precursor to Netscape. It was released in 1993. Widespread use =
didn=E2=80=99t really kick in until the second half of that decade. The =
reference bitcoin client was released in January 2009. So it=E2=80=99s =
basically 1988 for bitcoin, if we use the internet as a proxy - one way =
to look at it. The telephone even took 50 years to become widespread.=20=
> I don't think that a relative tight block size could harm Bitcoin
> middle-term. Only experienced users penetrate the block chain =
directly.
> They know what they are doing and deal with problems. When space for
> transactions starts to become scarce and the fees rise too much, the
> developers have enough time to make a change. It would then also not =
so
> controversial. A matter of a few days or weeks. Especially if all
> necessary preparations have already been taken.
This is insane. You actually believe this? Capping the block size at =
1MB doesn=E2=80=99t just cause fees to rise. It caps transactions that =
can be performed. This caps the number of users who can access bitcoin, =
directly cuts demand, which kills the price, which kills the mining, and =
BAM Rome falls. Only experienced users can =E2=80=9Cpenetrate=E2=80=99 =
the block chain directly? Seriously? You download a software =
application, or sign up for a web wallet, buy some bitcoin on an =
exchange or have a friend send you some, and send it. Try bread wallet. =
My mom can do it. She is in her 70=E2=80=99s and couldn=E2=80=99t =
program a VCR 20 years ago.
I am just going to stop here. I really hope you change the way you are =
looking at bitcoin. This is not what it was meant to be, and if it ever =
becomes this, I=E2=80=99m not going to be interested in it.
> On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:31 AM, Oliver Egginger <bitcoin@olivere.de> =
wrote:
>=20
> Am 21.08.2015 um 15:34 schrieb Will Madden:
>> Keeping the block size at 1mb restricts the number of active users of =
bitcoin to around 100,000 people transacting twice a day on blockchain. =20=
>> BItcoin is a protocol. Protocols are successful because of their =
network effect. Capping the block size freezes bitcoin=E2=80=99s =
network effect, limits users and prevents new users from joining (which =
will cut demand to exchange bitcoin) and also freeze the economic =
incentive to mine, because it will hurt the price. =20
>=20
> As a protocol Bitcoin could support millions of full nodes. What you
> talking about is the number of shareholders. But these are poorly
> determined by the block size. The number of shareholders is determined
> by many parameter but manly by the decreasing-supply algorithm. Which
> "was chosen because it approximates the rate at which commodities like
> gold are mined". See: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply
>=20
> While the decreasing-supply algorithm of Bitcoin has many advantage =
it's
> very hard to believe that the block chain will ever reach mass =
adoption.
> Even after 6 years, hardly anyone owns Bitcoins. Like Gold Bitcoin is
> distributed in large blocks to a few. Exceptions prove the rule. In =
the
> last 6 years the 1MB limit has been sufficient. I don't think that we
> will hit the 8MB limit in the next 6 years, except for stress tests =
and
> spam.
>=20
>> Freezing bitcoin=E2=80=99s growth for any meaningful length of time =
will
>> threaten its position as the leading cryptocurrency.
>=20
> I don't think that a relative tight block size could harm Bitcoin
> middle-term. Only experienced users penetrate the block chain =
directly.
> They know what they are doing and deal with problems. When space for
> transactions starts to become scarce and the fees rise too much, the
> developers have enough time to make a change. It would then also not =
so
> controversial. A matter of a few days or weeks. Especially if all
> necessary preparations have already been taken.
>=20
> But I know that my opinion is very different from other claims. =
However,
> reliable people share some more fatalism as I'm currently find in some
> parts of the the Bitcoin community. Fear is a very bad adviser and can
> make a genius stupid.
>=20
> - oliver
>=20
|
