summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorJorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc>2015-08-11 21:53:56 +0200
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2015-08-11 19:53:58 +0000
commit0f6e8114f1a84a4afdcdf2348b8a9c2bb5205ecc (patch)
treebdb0105aa092e4b0bc658b090547dc580be83719
parentb4acf39c8aaa7776e380f1e7377046bd673643b0 (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-0f6e8114f1a84a4afdcdf2348b8a9c2bb5205ecc.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-0f6e8114f1a84a4afdcdf2348b8a9c2bb5205ecc.zip
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process
-rw-r--r--84/ca9067652f9d5ecd77b0101b107a76ff374a47152
1 files changed, 152 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/84/ca9067652f9d5ecd77b0101b107a76ff374a47 b/84/ca9067652f9d5ecd77b0101b107a76ff374a47
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..f1ad7de0f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/84/ca9067652f9d5ecd77b0101b107a76ff374a47
@@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
+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 E57F097
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:53:58 +0000 (UTC)
+X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
+Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com
+ [209.85.212.180])
+ by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D1A9123
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:53:58 +0000 (UTC)
+Received: by wijp15 with SMTP id p15so190558691wij.0
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:53:56 -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;
+ bh=fhzd1FR23vXpB511bLrDlW3T5qMyuPxNWQZfwaHk/So=;
+ b=NsLqxL3IzFTeZ0tsdY0Dgk+oI/NWmfqNmx8RodBzIDS5UM1uAUINFZcYcO6NbHrvzv
+ TlLoLBpWtF4hlC7PEYFSkKyuucq1e7joxvt+kj30q/qQAYHYIKWeM9VhsjRGzTZzGbgv
+ Sa53ePourOlm1oPYEOzx/SdWjwrpZdH0+q9wONmNvDteZFCvvTi1lT5E4WibxRL6oFfk
+ JyKc7ZEna9eTplSYuTN7ufeyFFtFaHt0Wpst18V3JVco21zqv6TBZoDm35wKWLulUXfN
+ Dx+iCjARuupYs1Qr4Pc/QlcbZWiwEWW2BVbqa1Y+0voO4s/d8gY6DPN+C+whJoh1LNch
+ tmqg==
+X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnAc/mcSIkWdTlaCI5/jufDRITCtjNSAdr1ZdEEF3qlCG+oK+H93KYKFRgpdNis+n6/gWxO
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+X-Received: by 10.180.37.74 with SMTP id w10mr37224174wij.92.1439322836737;
+ Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
+Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
+Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
+In-Reply-To: <CALgxB7sLsod9Kb-pwxGwCtPpWXsUusDE1nJ7p4nbFMG8mDWFtg@mail.gmail.com>
+References: <CABsx9T16fH+56isq95m4+QWsKwP==tf75ep8ghnEcBoV4OtZJA@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CABm2gDpwMQzju+Gsoe3qMi60MPr7OAiSuigy3RdA1xh-SwFzbw@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CABm2gDoz4NMEQuQj6UHCYYCwihZrEC4Az8xDvTBwiZDf9eQ7-w@mail.gmail.com>
+ <8181630.GdAj0CPZYc@coldstorage>
+ <CABm2gDp2svO2G5bHs5AcjjN8dmP6P5nv0xriWez-pvzs2oBL5w@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CALgxB7sQM5ObxyxDiN_BOyJrgsgfQ6PAtJi52dJENfWCRKywWg@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CABm2gDq+2mXEN2hZY6_JYXAJX=Wxrxr6jm86P6g2YD4zzy-=Nw@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CALgxB7sLsod9Kb-pwxGwCtPpWXsUusDE1nJ7p4nbFMG8mDWFtg@mail.gmail.com>
+Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:53:56 +0200
+Message-ID: <CABm2gDr3ixS2pxfnuefU1VMn7Qf-4mxDGdG-6UEV0Nf28eigqA@mail.gmail.com>
+From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
+To: Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com>
+Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f64720f66c947051d0e7635
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,
+ 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] Fees and the block-finding process
+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: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:53:59 -0000
+
+--e89a8f64720f66c947051d0e7635
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+
+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 Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrot=
+e:
+>>
+>>
+>> 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?
+>
+>
+
+--e89a8f64720f66c947051d0e7635
+Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+
+<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
+On Aug 11, 2015 9:37 PM, &quot;Michael Naber&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mi=
+ckeybob@gmail.com">mickeybob@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:</p>
+<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt; 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&#39;m arguing that not on=
+ly we should not, but that we could not even if we wanted to, since competi=
+tion will deliver capacity for global consensus whether it&#39;s in Bitcoin=
+ or in some other product / fork.</p>
+<p dir=3D"ltr">You didn&#39;t answer the 2 questions...<br>
+Anyway, if we don&#39;t care about centralization at all, we can just remov=
+e the limit: that&#39;s what &quot;technology can provide&quot;.<br>
+Maybe in that case it is developers who move to a decentralized competitor.=
+..</p>
+<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt; On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n &lt;j=
+timon@jtimon.cc&gt; wrote:<br>
+&gt;&gt;<br>
+&gt;&gt;<br>
+&gt;&gt; On Aug 11, 2015 8:46 PM, &quot;Michael Naber&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"=
+mailto:mickeybob@gmail.com">mickeybob@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
+&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
+&gt;&gt; &gt; Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a global c=
+onsensus network -- which is a network where all the participating nodes ar=
+e aware of and agree upon every transaction.=C2=A0Constraining Bitcoin capa=
+city below the limits of technology will only push users seeking to partici=
+pate in a global consensus network to other solutions which have adequate c=
+apacity, such as BitcoinXT or others. Note that lightning / hub and spoke d=
+o not meet requirements for users wishing to participate in global consensu=
+s, because they are not global consensus networks, since all participating =
+nodes are not aware of all transactions.=C2=A0<br>
+&gt;&gt;<br>
+&gt;&gt; Even if you are right, first fees will raise and that will be what=
+ pushes people to other altcoins, no?<br>
+&gt;&gt; Can we agree that the first step in any potentially bad situation =
+is hitting the limit and then fees rising as a consequence?<br>
+&gt;<br>
+&gt;<br>
+</p>
+
+--e89a8f64720f66c947051d0e7635--
+