* [bitcoin-dev] High fees / centralization [not found] ` <CALJP9GBk4gG0H+tEJmEiz=0+LAQoe6_sL1Fv-BCJSfmvfY8PRA@mail.gmail.com> @ 2017-03-30 15:38 ` Tom Harding 2017-03-30 16:14 ` David Vorick 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Tom Harding @ 2017-03-30 15:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Raystonn ., Bitcoin Dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1612 bytes --] Raystonn, Your logic is very hard to dispute. An important special case is small miners. Small miners use pools exactly because they want smaller, more frequent payments. Rising fees force them to take payments less frequently, and will only tend to make more of them give up. With fees rising superlinearly, this centralizing effect is much stronger than the oft-cited worry of small miners joining large pools to decrease orphan rates. On Mar 29, 2017 15:01, "Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote: Low node costs are a good goal for nodes that handle transactions the node operator can afford. Nobody is going to run a node for a network they do not use for their own transactions. If transactions have fees that prohibit use for most economic activity, that means node count will drop until nodes are generally run by those who settle large amounts. That is very centralizing. Raystonn On 29 Mar 2017 12:14 p.m., Jared Lee Richardson via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote: In order for any blocksize increase to be agreed upon, more consensus is needed. The proportion of users believing no blocksize increases are needed is larger than the hardfork target core wants(95% consensus). The proportion of users believing in microtransactions for all is also larger than 5%, and both of those groups may be larger than 10% respectively. I don't think either the Big-blocks faction nor the low-node-costs faction have even a simple majority of support. Getting consensus is going to be a big mess, but it is critical that it is done. [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3078 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] High fees / centralization 2017-03-30 15:38 ` [bitcoin-dev] High fees / centralization Tom Harding @ 2017-03-30 16:14 ` David Vorick 2017-03-30 21:52 ` Jared Lee Richardson 2017-03-31 1:13 ` Tom Harding 0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: David Vorick @ 2017-03-30 16:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bitcoin Dev, Tom Harding [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1005 bytes --] On Mar 30, 2017 12:04 PM, "Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote: Raystonn, Your logic is very hard to dispute. An important special case is small miners. Small miners use pools exactly because they want smaller, more frequent payments. Rising fees force them to take payments less frequently, and will only tend to make more of them give up. With fees rising superlinearly, this centralizing effect is much stronger than the oft-cited worry of small miners joining large pools to decrease orphan rates. Miners get paid on average once every ten minutes. The size of fees and the number of fee transactions does not change the payout rate. Further, we are very far from the point (in my appraisal) where fees are high enough to block home users from using the network. Bitcoin has many high-value use cases such as savings. We should not throw away the core innovation of monetary sovereignty in pursuit of supporting 0.1% of the world's daily transactions. [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1989 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] High fees / centralization 2017-03-30 16:14 ` David Vorick @ 2017-03-30 21:52 ` Jared Lee Richardson 2017-03-31 1:39 ` Vladimir Zaytsev 2017-03-31 1:13 ` Tom Harding 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Jared Lee Richardson @ 2017-03-30 21:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Vorick, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2721 bytes --] > Further, we are very far from the point (in my appraisal) where fees are high enough to block home users from using the network. This depends entirely on the usecase entirely. Most likely even without a blocksize increase, home purchases will be large enough to fit on the blocksize in the forseeable future. Microtransactions(<$0.25) on the other hand aren't viable no matter what we try to do - There's just too much data. Most likely, transaction fees above $1 per tx will become unappealing for many consumers, and above $10 is likely to be niche-level. It is hard to say with any certainty, but average credit card fees give us some indications to work with - $1.2 on a $30 transaction, though paid by the business and not the consumer. Without blocksize increases, fees higher than $1/tx are basically inevitable, most likely before 2020. Running a node only costs $10/month if that. If we were going to favor node operational costs that highly in the weighting, we'd better have a pretty solid justification with mathematical models or examples. > We should not throw away the core innovation of monetary sovereignty in pursuit of supporting 0.1% of the world's daily transactions. If we can easily have both, why not have both? An altcoin with both will take Bitcoin's monetary sovereignty crown by default. No crown, no usecases, no Bitcoin. On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:14 AM, David Vorick via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Mar 30, 2017 12:04 PM, "Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev" < > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Raystonn, > > Your logic is very hard to dispute. An important special case is small > miners. > > Small miners use pools exactly because they want smaller, more frequent > payments. > > Rising fees force them to take payments less frequently, and will only > tend to make more of them give up. > > With fees rising superlinearly, this centralizing effect is much stronger > than the oft-cited worry of small miners joining large pools to decrease > orphan rates. > > > Miners get paid on average once every ten minutes. The size of fees and > the number of fee transactions does not change the payout rate. > > Further, we are very far from the point (in my appraisal) where fees are > high enough to block home users from using the network. > > Bitcoin has many high-value use cases such as savings. We should not throw > away the core innovation of monetary sovereignty in pursuit of supporting > 0.1% of the world's daily transactions. > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4563 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] High fees / centralization 2017-03-30 21:52 ` Jared Lee Richardson @ 2017-03-31 1:39 ` Vladimir Zaytsev 2017-03-31 2:01 ` Jared Lee Richardson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Vladimir Zaytsev @ 2017-03-31 1:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jared Lee Richardson, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1803 bytes --] There must be a way to organize “branches” of smaller activity to join main tree after they grow. Outsider a bit, I see going circles here, but not everything must be accepted in the chain. Good idea as it is, it’s just too early to record every sight…. > On Mar 30, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Jared Lee Richardson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > Further, we are very far from the point (in my appraisal) where fees are high enough to block home users from using the network. > > This depends entirely on the usecase entirely. Most likely even without a blocksize increase, home purchases will be large enough to fit on the blocksize in the forseeable future. Microtransactions(<$0.25) on the other hand aren't viable no matter what we try to do - There's just too much data. > > Most likely, transaction fees above $1 per tx will become unappealing for many consumers, and above $10 is likely to be niche-level. It is hard to say with any certainty, but average credit card fees give us some indications to work with - $1.2 on a $30 transaction, though paid by the business and not the consumer. > > Without blocksize increases, fees higher than $1/tx are basically inevitable, most likely before 2020. Running a node only costs $10/month if that. If we were going to favor node operational costs that highly in the weighting, we'd better have a pretty solid justification with mathematical models or examples. > > > We should not throw away the core innovation of monetary sovereignty in pursuit of supporting 0.1% of the world's daily transactions. > > If we can easily have both, why not have both? > > An altcoin with both will take Bitcoin's monetary sovereignty crown by default. No crown, no usecases, no Bitcoin. > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2747 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] High fees / centralization 2017-03-31 1:39 ` Vladimir Zaytsev @ 2017-03-31 2:01 ` Jared Lee Richardson 2017-03-31 2:26 ` Vladimir Zaytsev 2017-04-02 19:45 ` Staf Verhaegen 0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Jared Lee Richardson @ 2017-03-31 2:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vladimir Zaytsev; +Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2188 bytes --] That would be blockchain sharding. Would be amazing if someone could figure out how to do it trustlessly. So far I'm not convinced it is possible to resolve the conflicts between the shards and commit transactions between shards. On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir Zaytsev < vladimir.zaytsev@gmail•com> wrote: > There must be a way to organize “branches” of smaller activity to join > main tree after they grow. Outsider a bit, I see going circles here, but > not everything must be accepted in the chain. Good idea as it is, it’s just > too early to record every sight…. > > > > On Mar 30, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Jared Lee Richardson via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > Further, we are very far from the point (in my appraisal) where fees > are high enough to block home users from using the network. > > This depends entirely on the usecase entirely. Most likely even without a > blocksize increase, home purchases will be large enough to fit on the > blocksize in the forseeable future. Microtransactions(<$0.25) on the other > hand aren't viable no matter what we try to do - There's just too much data. > > Most likely, transaction fees above $1 per tx will become unappealing for > many consumers, and above $10 is likely to be niche-level. It is hard to > say with any certainty, but average credit card fees give us some > indications to work with - $1.2 on a $30 transaction, though paid by the > business and not the consumer. > > Without blocksize increases, fees higher than $1/tx are basically > inevitable, most likely before 2020. Running a node only costs $10/month > if that. If we were going to favor node operational costs that highly in > the weighting, we'd better have a pretty solid justification with > mathematical models or examples. > > > We should not throw away the core innovation of monetary sovereignty in > pursuit of supporting 0.1% of the world's daily transactions. > > If we can easily have both, why not have both? > > An altcoin with both will take Bitcoin's monetary sovereignty crown by > default. No crown, no usecases, no Bitcoin. > > > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3027 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] High fees / centralization 2017-03-31 2:01 ` Jared Lee Richardson @ 2017-03-31 2:26 ` Vladimir Zaytsev 2017-04-02 19:45 ` Staf Verhaegen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Vladimir Zaytsev @ 2017-03-31 2:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jared Lee Richardson; +Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2450 bytes --] Can there be a minimum amount to put up for mining ? I hope i’m not in violation with any ideology yet :) > On Mar 30, 2017, at 10:01 PM, Jared Lee Richardson <jaredr26@gmail•com> wrote: > > That would be blockchain sharding. > > Would be amazing if someone could figure out how to do it trustlessly. So far I'm not convinced it is possible to resolve the conflicts between the shards and commit transactions between shards. > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir Zaytsev <vladimir.zaytsev@gmail•com <mailto:vladimir.zaytsev@gmail•com>> wrote: > There must be a way to organize “branches” of smaller activity to join main tree after they grow. Outsider a bit, I see going circles here, but not everything must be accepted in the chain. Good idea as it is, it’s just too early to record every sight…. > > > >> On Mar 30, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Jared Lee Richardson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: >> >> > Further, we are very far from the point (in my appraisal) where fees are high enough to block home users from using the network. >> >> This depends entirely on the usecase entirely. Most likely even without a blocksize increase, home purchases will be large enough to fit on the blocksize in the forseeable future. Microtransactions(<$0.25) on the other hand aren't viable no matter what we try to do - There's just too much data. >> >> Most likely, transaction fees above $1 per tx will become unappealing for many consumers, and above $10 is likely to be niche-level. It is hard to say with any certainty, but average credit card fees give us some indications to work with - $1.2 on a $30 transaction, though paid by the business and not the consumer. >> >> Without blocksize increases, fees higher than $1/tx are basically inevitable, most likely before 2020. Running a node only costs $10/month if that. If we were going to favor node operational costs that highly in the weighting, we'd better have a pretty solid justification with mathematical models or examples. >> >> > We should not throw away the core innovation of monetary sovereignty in pursuit of supporting 0.1% of the world's daily transactions. >> >> If we can easily have both, why not have both? >> >> An altcoin with both will take Bitcoin's monetary sovereignty crown by default. No crown, no usecases, no Bitcoin. >> >> > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4003 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] High fees / centralization 2017-03-31 2:01 ` Jared Lee Richardson 2017-03-31 2:26 ` Vladimir Zaytsev @ 2017-04-02 19:45 ` Staf Verhaegen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Staf Verhaegen @ 2017-04-02 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bitcoin-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 516 bytes --] Jared Lee Richardson via bitcoin-dev schreef op do 30-03-2017 om 19:01 [-0700]: > That would be blockchain sharding. > > Would be amazing if someone could figure out how to do it trustlessly. > So far I'm not convinced it is possible to resolve the conflicts > between the shards and commit transactions between shards. I'm thinking more of a system where different nodes can agree to do part of the transaction processing. In that way 20000 nodes could work like 5000 full nodes. greets, Staf. [-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 230 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] High fees / centralization 2017-03-30 16:14 ` David Vorick 2017-03-30 21:52 ` Jared Lee Richardson @ 2017-03-31 1:13 ` Tom Harding 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Tom Harding @ 2017-03-31 1:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Vorick, Bitcoin Dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1641 bytes --] On 3/30/2017 9:14 AM, David Vorick wrote: > On Mar 30, 2017 12:04 PM, "Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev" > <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: > > Raystonn, > > Your logic is very hard to dispute. An important special case is > small miners. > > Small miners use pools exactly because they want smaller, more > frequent payments. > > Rising fees force them to take payments less frequently, and will > only tend to make more of them give up. > > With fees rising superlinearly, this centralizing effect is much > stronger than the oft-cited worry of small miners joining large > pools to decrease orphan rates. > > > Miners get paid on average once every ten minutes. The size of fees > and the number of fee transactions does not change the payout rate. > > Further, we are very far from the point (in my appraisal) where fees > are high enough to block home users from using the network. > > Bitcoin has many high-value use cases such as savings. We should not > throw away the core innovation of monetary sovereignty in pursuit of > supporting 0.1% of the world's daily transactions. > Owners of small mining rigs get paid by pools, generally using regular transactions that pay regular fees (p2pool is an exception that pays directly from coinbase). The point is the unintended consequences are directly at odds with one of the justifications offered for small blocks - miner centralization. This is a special case. Raystonn's general point was that high fees will lead to fewer economic actors overall, and therefore fewer full nodes. [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3667 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-04-02 19:45 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <CALJP9GB2Fds8m9JpaVv0NxGDr579BtR9RMs7-KNSLkK8Mz7LoA@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CALJP9GAOgpSAhrrYFPRbGKZXwqZn_oDUmv6B7wcvwxcZufDd0g@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CALJP9GDkdxsvOZHJxzx+0pvjWBAkAswZCWXcp=zL7LNMRNfCOg@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CALJP9GBk4gG0H+tEJmEiz=0+LAQoe6_sL1Fv-BCJSfmvfY8PRA@mail.gmail.com>
2017-03-30 15:38 ` [bitcoin-dev] High fees / centralization Tom Harding
2017-03-30 16:14 ` David Vorick
2017-03-30 21:52 ` Jared Lee Richardson
2017-03-31 1:39 ` Vladimir Zaytsev
2017-03-31 2:01 ` Jared Lee Richardson
2017-03-31 2:26 ` Vladimir Zaytsev
2017-04-02 19:45 ` Staf Verhaegen
2017-03-31 1:13 ` Tom Harding
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox