diff options
| author | Geir Harald Hansen <operator@bitminter.com> | 2015-08-14 00:01:15 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-08-13 22:01:25 +0000 |
| commit | 7e717981df6391caddee381ae4bbd974f746cb9b (patch) | |
| tree | 4efe8d405256af96705c333d8f27db98e0df0d4e | |
| parent | 3225b2393884425d43c1b882fc895f318d576ba2 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-7e717981df6391caddee381ae4bbd974f746cb9b.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-7e717981df6391caddee381ae4bbd974f746cb9b.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] A summary list of all concerns related to not rising the block size
| -rw-r--r-- | 0e/4504b0f13e67c75acc835fe46d088ba2053234 | 108 |
1 files changed, 108 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/0e/4504b0f13e67c75acc835fe46d088ba2053234 b/0e/4504b0f13e67c75acc835fe46d088ba2053234 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c5f9b71f8 --- /dev/null +++ b/0e/4504b0f13e67c75acc835fe46d088ba2053234 @@ -0,0 +1,108 @@ +Return-Path: <operator@bitminter.com> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D3B186 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 13 Aug 2015 22:01:25 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from outpost.bitwarp.com (outpost.bitwarp.com [144.76.39.233]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18C7D141 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 13 Aug 2015 22:01:22 +0000 (UTC) +To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +References: <CABm2gDrfB+c1QTZippYYNX-uhcd9NYUcR-VHug6FYtPmSoz4Bw@mail.gmail.com> +From: Geir Harald Hansen <operator@bitminter.com> +X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 +Message-ID: <55CD13AB.2050604@bitminter.com> +Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 00:01:15 +0200 +User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 + Thunderbird/38.1.0 +MIME-Version: 1.0 +In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDrfB+c1QTZippYYNX-uhcd9NYUcR-VHug6FYtPmSoz4Bw@mail.gmail.com> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham + version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.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: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 22:01:25 -0000 + +3) A few more people begin using bitcoin. Bitcoin buckles and dies. + +- Something happens a few months from now causing an influx of new users +and more transactions. +- Blocks are constantly full. +- A backlog of transactions keeps growing indefinitely. +- At first people say "bitcoin is slow". After a while they say "bitcoin +doesn't work". +- Changing the hard limit on block size requires a fork and takes too long. +- As bitcoin no longer works people stop using it. +- Bitcoin lives out the last of its days in the backwaters of the +internet with only 5 users. They keep telling people "we increased the +block size now". Unfortunately noone is listening anymore. +- People laugh at you and say "I told you that buttcoin thing was doomed +to fail. After all it wasn't real money." + +If the hard limit had been increased earlier then mining pools would +have been able to react quickly by upping their own soft limit. But this +was not the case and so ended Bitcoin. + +So in summary: + +By increasing the block size limit you run the risk of: +- The transaction fee market takes a little longer to develop. +By not increasing the limit you run the risk of: +- Bitcoin dies. The end. + +Transaction fees should not be the main topic of this discussion, and +probably not even a part of it at all. That seems outright irresponsible +to me. + +Regards, +Geir H. Hansen, Bitminter mining pool + +On 12.08.2015 11:59, Jorge Tim�n via bitcoin-dev wrote: +> I believe all concerns I've read can be classified in the following groups: +> +>> 1) Potential indirect consequence of rising fees. +> +> - Lowest fee transactions (currently free transactions) will become +> more unreliable. +> - People will migrate to competing systems (PoW altcoins) with lower fees. +> +>> 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). +> +> - Bitcoin Core's mempool is unbounded in size and can make the program +> crash by using too much memory. +> - 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). +> +> I have started with the 3 concerns that I read more often, but please +> suggest more concerns for these categories and suggest other +> categories if you think there's more. +> _______________________________________________ +> bitcoin-dev mailing list +> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev +> + + |