diff options
author | Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc> | 2015-08-11 21:53:56 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-08-11 19:53:58 +0000 |
commit | 0f6e8114f1a84a4afdcdf2348b8a9c2bb5205ecc (patch) | |
tree | bdb0105aa092e4b0bc658b090547dc580be83719 | |
parent | b4acf39c8aaa7776e380f1e7377046bd673643b0 (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-0f6e8114f1a84a4afdcdf2348b8a9c2bb5205ecc.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-0f6e8114f1a84a4afdcdf2348b8a9c2bb5205ecc.zip |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process
-rw-r--r-- | 84/ca9067652f9d5ecd77b0101b107a76ff374a47 | 152 |
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, "Michael Naber" <<a href=3D"mailto:mi= +ckeybob@gmail.com">mickeybob@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</p> +<p dir=3D"ltr">> 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 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's in Bitcoin= + or in some other product / fork.</p> +<p dir=3D"ltr">You didn't answer the 2 questions...<br> +Anyway, if we don't care about centralization at all, we can just remov= +e the limit: that's what "technology can provide".<br> +Maybe in that case it is developers who move to a decentralized competitor.= +..</p> +<p dir=3D"ltr">> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <j= +timon@jtimon.cc> wrote:<br> +>><br> +>><br> +>> On Aug 11, 2015 8:46 PM, "Michael Naber" <<a href=3D"= +mailto:mickeybob@gmail.com">mickeybob@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> +>> ><br> +>> > 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> +>><br> +>> Even if you are right, first fees will raise and that will be what= + pushes people to other altcoins, no?<br> +>> Can we agree that the first step in any potentially bad situation = +is hitting the limit and then fees rising as a consequence?<br> +><br> +><br> +</p> + +--e89a8f64720f66c947051d0e7635-- + |