All things considered, if people want to participate in a global consensus network, and the technology exist to do it at a lower cost, then is it sensible or even possible to somehow arbitrarily set the price of participating in a global consensus network to be expensive? Can someone please walk me through how that's expected to play out because I'm really having a hard time understanding how it could work. On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > More people using Bitcoin does not necessarily mean more transactions > being processed by the block chain. Satoshi was forward-thinking enough to > include a powerful script-signature system, something which has never > really existed before. Though suffering from some limitations to be sure, > this smart contract execution framework is expressive enough to enable a > wide variety of new features without changing bitcoin itself. > > One of these invented features is micropayment channels -- the ability for > two parties to rapidly exchange funds while only settling the final balance > to the block chain, and to do so in an entirely trustless way. Right now > people don't use scripts to do interesting things like this, but there is > absolutely no reason why they can't. Lightning network is a vision of a > future where everyone uses a higher-layer protocol for their transactions > which only periodically settle on the block chain. It is entirely possible > that you may be able to do all your day-to-day transactions in bitcoin yet > only settle accounts every other week, totaling 13kB per year. A 1MB block > could support that level of usage by 4 million people, which is many orders > of magnitude more than the number of people presently using bitcoin on a > day to day basis. > > And that, by the way, is without considering as-yet uninvented > applications of existing or future script which will provide even further > improvements to scale. This is very fertile ground being explored by very > few people. One thing I hope to come out of this block size debate is a lot > more people (like Joseph Poon) looking at how bitcoin script can be used to > enable new and innovative resource-efficient and privacy-enhancing payment > protocols. > > The network has room to grow. It just requires wallet developers and other > infrastructure folk to step up to the plate and do their part in deploying > this technology. > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:14 AM, Angel Leon wrote: > >> - 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 >>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >