diff options
| author | Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc> | 2015-08-15 00:55:06 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-08-14 22:55:10 +0000 |
| commit | 09e7245a57b06e6f6aee248c8d5ed3f7ffdeb5e6 (patch) | |
| tree | d9b58e756681b15ee9dc580162d8185450cefa5d | |
| parent | 3644e9bde6f0cc1b2b8af95f42d74f3bd6e3b6a4 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-09e7245a57b06e6f6aee248c8d5ed3f7ffdeb5e6.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-09e7245a57b06e6f6aee248c8d5ed3f7ffdeb5e6.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] A summary list of all concerns related to not rising the block size
| -rw-r--r-- | bd/101e060a4a11d2ba89ba117a2a5bb9f464c7dd | 187 |
1 files changed, 187 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/bd/101e060a4a11d2ba89ba117a2a5bb9f464c7dd b/bd/101e060a4a11d2ba89ba117a2a5bb9f464c7dd new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e0579e19d --- /dev/null +++ b/bd/101e060a4a11d2ba89ba117a2a5bb9f464c7dd @@ -0,0 +1,187 @@ +Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07BBB267 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:55:10 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-ob0-f177.google.com (mail-ob0-f177.google.com + [209.85.214.177]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53BFE89 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:55:07 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by obnw1 with SMTP id w1so72530781obn.3 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:55:06 -0700 (PDT) +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=1e100.net; s=20130820; + h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date + :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type + :content-transfer-encoding; + bh=Px838ggYru3ItNROc9SA8JQueXeP5MjSt3i4xf1jDcE=; + b=PU7txZl4jj62VmrlKtio037G0PtHk+03sjyfunDnGX2irV6yKAV/iH7Rxbu2yACI0X + 2sGG/jUXOllVRx9jAdc8fCqfMeRHVOXbz/YWJDj6oWr4buTgWZq4sdRxPofBUXDtsEPZ + ZUQEjLxqgkqKZjTDv4gf9sEwAkPZu61Cah6VJI5RfhVToLOfE7+jivaDuTDfaIvjH55D + zM+4tty+TuouQlFjEENRakZ3W+YQRr9BUj5lQi7v0f2dJXbY3G6wzkJoVT7yfo8QcvnJ + OrTT6T2Ljf/ScLswVOI7B8SveANKxnmtMqL0TaKZhqnztGGbXsv7dlXuVy/cy5ilzUlA + jbXQ== +X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl/v8O9CjLtQ9QC64E3rrdckng0QwuKqx5hL63AdzClxVkxwuZrMNkWpCFJlPQCEPCU1sys +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.60.85.106 with SMTP id g10mr10405590oez.53.1439592906660; + Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:55:06 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by 10.202.71.85 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:55:06 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <CA+BnGuEPbtY8cH+2dq+g8W9Rz-yhftqoVTNa-Ge8eDu=0CoOQw@mail.gmail.com> +References: <CABm2gDrfB+c1QTZippYYNX-uhcd9NYUcR-VHug6FYtPmSoz4Bw@mail.gmail.com> + <CA+BnGuEPbtY8cH+2dq+g8W9Rz-yhftqoVTNa-Ge8eDu=0CoOQw@mail.gmail.com> +Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:55:06 +0200 +Message-ID: <CABm2gDqzSOQ38Rt4xQgCrNpNsoZLd+nKC8X5z_hQnt9qWOEg=A@mail.gmail.com> +From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc> +To: Elliot Olds <elliot.olds@gmail.com> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A summary list of all concerns related to not + rising the block size +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, 14 Aug 2015 22:55:10 -0000 + +On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Elliot Olds <elliot.olds@gmail.com> wrote: +> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n +> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: +>> +>> I believe all concerns I've read can be classified in the following +>> groups: +>> +>> > 1) Potential indirect consequence of rising fees. +> +> +> I'd rephrase this as "Consequences of high fees." It's the level of fees +> that is the main issue, not their movement. + +I think potential is more general since it allows us to list uncertain +consequences (aren't all consequences just projections and thus +uncertain anyway?). + +> Moving from 0 satoshi to 1 satoshi fees makes no real difference. + +It is a big difference to me (it may mean policy code has improved a +lot in the process). +Anyway, I'm heppy to hear again that this is not a concern, at some +point I thought this was the ONLY concern, so I was clearly +misinterpreting people's arguments. + +> Moving from $0 to $1 fees makes a +> huge difference. Some consequences are indirect, but others are not (the +> first three below are not indirect). Some of the consequences are uncerta= +in, +> but others we can have very high confidence in (again: the first three) a= +nd +> it's only their effect size that can be reasonably disputed. + +Let's list them all first and then identify which are more worrying in +the short term. + +> Here are lots of reasons that you're missing. High fees do the following: +> +> -Reduce the utility of people using the network, even if the higher fees +> don't reduce their amount of transactions. + +"Utility" like "value" is always subjective and very vague. I prefer +to identify more concrete ways in which "utility is reduced". + +> -Make some use cases nonviable, depriving people of Bitcoin's decentraliz= +ed +> benefits. + +It is clear that not all use cases fit the blockchain, but it's still +unclear which ones don't fit yet. +But the amount of use cases supported is not a valid metric for +decentralization. +In any case, it would be interesting if we could list some concrete +cases that would be lost. + +> -Makes level 2 infrastructure like Lightning less valuable by increasing = +the +> minimum value of anchor txns that make sense, and increasing the amount o= +f +> pain suffered when your counterparty misbehaves. + +This is correct. Layer 2 can become more expensive in total as well +(it doesn't mean layer 2 doesn't scale though). +I wil add it as 1.3 + +> -Discourage experimentation with new Bitcoin use cases, making it more +> unlikely that such cases are discovered/improved/popular before Bitcoin's +> security relies on having many users. + +Experimentation can be done with worthless testchains. I'm not sure +I'm following on this one. + +> -Makes Bitcoin more vulnerable to regulation by keeping its user base fro= +m +> growing, meaning regulators face less pressure to keep it unregulated (se= +e: +> Uber) + +Added: + +1.4) Less users than we could have had with a bigger size +1.4.1) More regulation pressure + +> -Reduce the amount of time we have between now and when tx fees need to p= +ay +> for a significant portion of Bitcoin's security, by keeping the exchange +> rate and thus the value of block rewards low +> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_exchange) + +Related to exchange rate. + +> -By slowing usage growth, make it less likely that we have a large enough +> base of transactions by the time we need to fund network security via tx +> fees. + +Added: + +1.4.2) Not enough fees when subsidy is lower + +Resulting list: + +1) Potential indirect consequence of rising fees. + +1.1) Lowest fee transactions (currently free transactions) will become +more unreliable. +1.2) People will migrate to competing systems (PoW altcoins) with lower fee= +s. +1.3) Layer 2 settlements become more expensive +1.4) Less users than we could have had with a bigger size +1.4.1) More regulation pressure +1.4.2) Not enough fees when subsidy is lower + +2) Software problem independent of a concrete block size that needs to +be solved anyway, often specific to Bitcoin Core (ie other +implementations, say libbitcoin may not necessarily share these +problems). + +2.1) Bitcoin Core's mempool is unbounded in size and can make the program +crash by using too much memory. + +2.2) There's no good way to increase the fee of a transaction that is +taking too long to be mined without the "double spending" transaction +with the higher fee being blocked by most nodes which follow Bitcoin +Core's default policy for conflicting spends replacements (aka "first +seen" replacement policy). + |