From: Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail•com>
To: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon•cc>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:56:45 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALgxB7vw=yeEjnv7Eu96Etj_BdmwamH4dVZaJKaVviwFDtzhWw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDr3ixS2pxfnuefU1VMn7Qf-4mxDGdG-6UEV0Nf28eigqA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3086 bytes --]
I'm not sure whether removing the limit at the protocol-level would lead to
government by miners who might reject blocks which were too big, but I
probably wouldn't want to take that risk. I think we should probably keep a
block size limit in the protocol, but that we should increase it to be as
high as "technology can provide." Toward that: I don't necessarily think
that node-count in and of itself should be the metric for evaluating what
technology can provide, as much as the goal that the chain be inexpensive
to validate given the capabilities of present technology -- so if I can
lease a server in a datacenter which can validate the chain and my total
cost to do that is just a few dollars, then we're probably ok.
Of course there's also the issue that we maintain enough geographic /
political distribution to keep the network reliable, but I think we're far
from being in danger on the reliability front. So maybe my criteria that
the chain be validated at low cost is the wrong focus, but if it is than
what's the appropriate criteria for deciding whether it's safe by standards
of "today's technology" to raise the limit at the protocol level?
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon•cc> wrote:
>
> On Aug 11, 2015 9:37 PM, "Michael Naber" <mickeybob@gmail•com> 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.
>
> You didn't answer the 2 questions...
> Anyway, if we don't care about centralization at all, we can just remove
> the limit: that's what "technology can provide".
> Maybe in that case it is developers who move to a decentralized
> competitor...
>
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon•cc> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Aug 11, 2015 8:46 PM, "Michael Naber" <mickeybob@gmail•com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a global consensus
> network -- which is a network where all the participating nodes are aware
> of and agree upon every transaction. Constraining Bitcoin capacity below
> the limits of technology will only push users seeking to participate in a
> global consensus network to other solutions which have adequate capacity,
> such as BitcoinXT or others. Note that lightning / hub and spoke do not
> meet requirements for users wishing to participate in global consensus,
> because they are not global consensus networks, since all participating
> nodes are not aware of all transactions.
> >>
> >> Even if you are right, first fees will raise and that will be what
> pushes people to other altcoins, no?
> >> Can we agree that the first step in any potentially bad situation is
> hitting the limit and then fees rising as a consequence?
> >
> >
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3790 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-11 20:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 94+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-07 14:57 Gavin Andresen
2015-08-07 15:16 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-07 15:55 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-08-07 16:28 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-07 17:47 ` Ryan Butler
2015-08-07 18:25 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-07 18:57 ` Ryan Butler
2015-08-07 19:07 ` Ryan Butler
2015-08-07 19:15 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-07 20:17 ` Ryan Butler
2015-08-07 20:33 ` Dave Hudson
2015-08-07 18:17 ` jl2012
2015-08-07 18:35 ` Bryan Bishop
2015-08-07 18:36 ` Simon Liu
2015-08-11 23:20 ` Elliot Olds
2015-08-07 17:33 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-07 22:12 ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-07 23:06 ` Adam Back
2015-08-08 22:45 ` Dave Scotese
2015-08-08 23:05 ` Alex Morcos
2015-08-09 5:52 ` Hector Chu
2015-08-09 10:32 ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-09 10:42 ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-09 20:43 ` Dave Scotese
2015-08-11 17:03 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-10 11:55 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-10 12:33 ` Btc Drak
2015-08-10 13:03 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-10 22:13 ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-11 17:47 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-11 18:46 ` Michael Naber
2015-08-11 18:48 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-11 18:55 ` Michael Naber
2015-08-11 19:45 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-11 21:31 ` Michael Naber
2015-08-11 18:51 ` Bryan Bishop
2015-08-11 18:59 ` Michael Naber
2015-08-11 19:27 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-11 19:37 ` Michael Naber
2015-08-11 19:51 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-11 21:18 ` Michael Naber
2015-08-11 21:23 ` Adam Back
2015-08-11 21:30 ` Angel Leon
2015-08-11 21:32 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-11 21:34 ` Adam Back
2015-08-11 21:39 ` Michael Naber
2015-08-12 6:10 ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-08-11 22:06 ` Angel Leon
2015-08-11 21:35 ` Michael Naber
2015-08-11 21:51 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-12 3:35 ` Elliot Olds
2015-08-12 4:47 ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-08-14 21:47 ` Elliot Olds
2015-08-12 0:56 ` Tom Harding
2015-08-12 1:18 ` Eric Voskuil
2015-08-12 8:10 ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-12 9:00 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-12 9:25 ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-11 19:53 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-11 20:56 ` Michael Naber [this message]
2015-08-12 7:54 ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-12 8:01 ` Thomas Zander
[not found] ` <1679272.aDpruqxXDP@coldstorage>
2015-08-12 8:51 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-12 9:23 ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-12 9:45 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-12 16:24 ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-17 14:49 ` BitMinter operator
2015-08-17 15:01 ` Peter Todd
2015-08-10 14:12 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-08-10 14:24 ` Alex Morcos
2015-08-10 22:12 ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-10 14:34 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-10 22:04 ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-20 14:40 ` Will Madden
2015-08-10 14:55 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-10 22:09 ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-10 22:52 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-10 23:11 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-11 5:34 ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-11 6:03 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-11 6:31 ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-11 7:08 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-11 8:38 ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-11 9:14 ` Angel Leon
2015-08-11 19:00 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-11 19:26 ` Michael Naber
2015-08-11 20:12 ` Adam Back
2015-08-12 0:32 ` odinn
2015-08-11 11:10 ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-12 0:18 ` odinn
2015-08-07 21:30 ` Jim Phillips
2015-08-07 18:22 ` Anthony Towns
2015-08-07 18:36 ` Peter R
2015-08-12 1:56 Corey Haddad
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CALgxB7vw=yeEjnv7Eu96Etj_BdmwamH4dVZaJKaVviwFDtzhWw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=mickeybob@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jtimon@jtimon$(echo .)cc \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox