diff options
| author | Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> | 2015-08-11 23:51:55 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-08-11 21:51:56 +0000 |
| commit | 207f35719e317f5595ff0833011f187932b8115b (patch) | |
| tree | a2c6ca00944fcf3010db7d13ace22d52d05dd3e3 | |
| parent | d0f8d034e9c11a427094942091571301d198223c (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-207f35719e317f5595ff0833011f187932b8115b.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-207f35719e317f5595ff0833011f187932b8115b.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process
| -rw-r--r-- | 3d/531667554c99162f314a57a6664ec34b04caf4 | 151 |
1 files changed, 151 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/3d/531667554c99162f314a57a6664ec34b04caf4 b/3d/531667554c99162f314a57a6664ec34b04caf4 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ca1df9b3e --- /dev/null +++ b/3d/531667554c99162f314a57a6664ec34b04caf4 @@ -0,0 +1,151 @@ +Return-Path: <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D36E9892 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:51:56 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-io0-f171.google.com (mail-io0-f171.google.com + [209.85.223.171]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6050E17D + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:51:56 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by iodb91 with SMTP id b91so1861856iod.1 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:51:55 -0700 (PDT) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; + h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to + :cc:content-type; + bh=oX1PQhAgglvGphsPxEY0xuR2w7ALb7FDI4lDvzsSL0w=; + b=Wwtk5Re8gEUL5/+RAvYK4mEJpnPZuc5HNhoHJjcZjm3a+C65Fl/AOESq5iIvdHB5PC + 76bjcuLihpHxt3pJqO5N5z5chgq0BmqhdH7vfI+6sT/9blUoe2eEfkoxG7H5OydV/q3g + c5Nfr2m7zfxllX4jbIQFANSGGWHpOWWSArN3yUoRUX1KsX0FCa3bKETYqcP+5EtazsB2 + fyS+iHI0fYBRZ5QINUnqju5UWn7tnqIRTQsadaZ9qwPc5oKJLefi9SrIYAOK8L+72p6p + bv13oeOqTPQRv/7bSEwd5JmlzgvIlJnyDDfECdMcFaWaMJ+TTbY4EiN0oUMApnNc2FO1 + 52Vg== +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.107.37.142 with SMTP id l136mr30509068iol.126.1439329915797; + Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:51:55 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by 10.36.77.201 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:51:55 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <CALgxB7vcQpPFcFYX72hkYuE8Da9saKKvSNWdh1m1dCvCCcwA=Q@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> + <CAPg+sBjGVk1jHraLZTroRneL6L1HxZ-bTGaLNwakcDSDDHqauA@mail.gmail.com> + <CALgxB7unOhWjoCcvGoCqzMnzwTL8XdJWt18kdiDSEeJ_cuiHqg@mail.gmail.com> + <CALqxMTFfUdMuNsNnx-B+SPq7HvQyA+NkvFHGVYPiFHn-ZipVJw@mail.gmail.com> + <CALgxB7vcQpPFcFYX72hkYuE8Da9saKKvSNWdh1m1dCvCCcwA=Q@mail.gmail.com> +Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 23:51:55 +0200 +Message-ID: <CAPg+sBgtVwgf4BBv6SDR_L1oaED9Cx3onC1FZbT+PX1rD2fSEA@mail.gmail.com> +From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> +To: Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140269a58a081051d101cba +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, + DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,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 21:51:56 -0000 + +--001a1140269a58a081051d101cba +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 + +On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com> wrote: + +> Bitcoin would be better money than current money even if it were a bit +> more expensive to transact, simply because of its other great +> characteristics (trustlessness, limited supply, etc). However... it is not +> better than something else sharing all those same characteristics but which +> is also less expensive. The best money will win, and if Bitcoin doesn't +> increase capacity then it won't remain the best. +> + +If it is less expensive, it is harder to be reliable (because it's easier +for a sudden new use case to outbid the available space), which is less +useful for a payment mechanism. + +If it has better scale (with the same technology), it will have higher +centralization pressure. The higher price you potentially pay (in fees) to +get your transactions on a smaller block chain is the price of higher +security and independence. Perhaps the compromise is not at the optimal +place, but please stop saying "below what the technology can do". The +technology can "do" gigabyte blocks I'm sure, If you accept that you need a +small cluster to keep up with validation, and all blocks are produced by a +single miner cartel. + +IMHO, Bitcoin (or any cryptocurrency) on-chain as a payment system is: +* Expensive: there is a (known in advance and agreed upon) inflation that +we're using to pay miners. But by holding Bitcoin you're paying for the +security of the system, even if it is not in fees. +* Unreliable: you never know when suddenly there will be more higher-fee +transactions that outbid you. +* Slow, unless you already trust the sender to not double spend (in which +case you don't actually need the security of the blockchain). + +I don't know the future, and I don't know what use cases will develop and +what they'll want to pay or what reliability they need. But let's please +not throw out the one quality that Bitcoin is still good at: lack of +centralized parties to trust. + +-- +Pieter + +--001a1140269a58a081051d101cba +Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"ltr">On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Michael Naber <span dir= +=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:mickeybob@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">micke= +ybob@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div cla= +ss=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 = +.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Bitcoin = +would be better money than current money even if it were a bit more expensi= +ve to transact, simply because of its other great characteristics (trustles= +sness, limited supply, etc). However... it is not better than something els= +e sharing all those same characteristics but which is also less expensive. = +The best money will win, and if Bitcoin doesn't increase capacity then = +it won't remain the best.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If = +it is less expensive, it is harder to be reliable (because it's easier = +for a sudden new use case to outbid the available space), which is less use= +ful for a payment mechanism.<br><br></div><div>If it has better scale (with= + the same technology), it will have higher centralization pressure. The hig= +her price you potentially pay (in fees) to get your transactions on a small= +er block chain is the price of higher security and independence. Perhaps th= +e compromise is not at the optimal place, but please stop saying "belo= +w what the technology can do". The technology can "do" gigab= +yte blocks I'm sure, If you accept that you need a small cluster to kee= +p up with validation, and all blocks are produced by a single miner cartel.= +<br><br></div><div>IMHO, Bitcoin (or any cryptocurrency) on-chain as a paym= +ent system is:<br></div><div>* Expensive: there is a (known in advance and = +agreed upon) inflation that we're using to pay miners. But by holding B= +itcoin you're paying for the security of the system, even if it is not = +in fees.<br></div><div>* Unreliable: you never know when suddenly there wil= +l be more higher-fee transactions that outbid you.<br></div><div>* Slow, un= +less you already trust the sender to not double spend (in which case you do= +n't actually need the security of the blockchain).<br></div><div><br></= +div><div>I don't know the future, and I don't know what use cases w= +ill develop and what they'll want to pay or what reliability they need.= + But let's please not throw out the one quality that Bitcoin is still g= +ood at: lack of centralized parties to trust.<br><br>-- <br></div><div>Piet= +er<br><br></div></div></div></div> + +--001a1140269a58a081051d101cba-- + |