diff options
| author | Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc> | 2015-07-31 03:29:21 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-07-31 01:29:24 +0000 |
| commit | be865219d3175a90df6b26cfff0cddf247e5f56b (patch) | |
| tree | f885113d35315ff0fe7cce1afa8102be7d7310f1 | |
| parent | a2ac2ec9a84d24c4bae13b49c1d7c33759e36f24 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-be865219d3175a90df6b26cfff0cddf247e5f56b.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-be865219d3175a90df6b26cfff0cddf247e5f56b.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Răspuns: Personal opinion on the fee market from a worried local trader
| -rw-r--r-- | 44/7a7826d1e036942c92a1e560799059469da780 | 198 |
1 files changed, 198 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/44/7a7826d1e036942c92a1e560799059469da780 b/44/7a7826d1e036942c92a1e560799059469da780 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..0c5dbc084 --- /dev/null +++ b/44/7a7826d1e036942c92a1e560799059469da780 @@ -0,0 +1,198 @@ +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 503851BB + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Fri, 31 Jul 2015 01:29:24 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com (mail-wi0-f182.google.com + [209.85.212.182]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33E50B0 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Fri, 31 Jul 2015 01:29:23 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by wibud3 with SMTP id ud3so40442880wib.1 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:29:21 -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=De9Q7NOOKFariI1jOmiauF0MzXpFk3s6Vw6dm10fJmc=; + b=XmxmqqBkp9Mm/FveyLWJ58Q8ps17/lZ9DVCLlrk95aMIJ/b+W5rRDzUSWx/bjC8yWa + MhOmnhPER6GeIvCcMxQNncbE2rvEJlvYuq5owALmOpm/Elw6zcm3bfHefKwtVDPvcSdp + //ijKCRDrDx/BNlUyupQT7L/DJ9TljvvAfb1gdzlsCoXrzTpUlsO+2t5C1m/FIWkOU0D + XsMZXt1uR7lWO6BUW3L70f/NYFDROunOjOw5OxdGblRH8tvuG5+cL0/DqtRJ84PSaj45 + Kdwo46VApf06boLeXK3jNHGrX9E8za5i2kasDkS09Xjs8798/dHZ2QaZZ4DH67XSyqHa + bD9Q== +X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmJ+s3CajCoUdHmQJNFwX1y9KNQIG6Rf1SjP3o9wXk9LFjh3TF+ipOnPXG5naTELviI9cM+ +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.180.21.175 with SMTP id w15mr1173105wie.58.1438306161586; + Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:29:21 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by 10.194.95.168 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:29:21 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDqCdrVvEzOfUZMBTbEfw5-nfNjBpDcWS-zmNey+_n-qMQ@mail.gmail.com> +References: <CADZB0_ZgDMhVgCUh2PTAPDL7k_W8QGt_HLYdkwv_qQ5xEMn8HA@mail.gmail.com> + <543015348.4948849.1438178962054.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> + <COL131-DS3F7339BCCA36BEFD1755ACD8C0@phx.gbl> + <55B959A2.9020402@sky-ip.org> + <CAF_2MyVAXg9788gatEQ-t4=8rJxXdkf9DA45uF5_gksDUM6b=A@mail.gmail.com> + <CALqxMTHEknuwPW-uG3W9Fv1sQC54ud3zk4aLQaFGTTjAt7ghfA@mail.gmail.com> + <CAF_2MyXhhZyHSekOR0uTKndt8onEHqTJGnZwWFXoHw6xngidPA@mail.gmail.com> + <55BA2329.1080700@thinlink.com> + <CABm2gDoh69a0335uLhwVndwwLiYtZEVdCvNsrCtHiRAVrSqkaQ@mail.gmail.com> + <55BA8ED0.4080600@thinlink.com> + <CABm2gDqCdrVvEzOfUZMBTbEfw5-nfNjBpDcWS-zmNey+_n-qMQ@mail.gmail.com> +Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 03:29:21 +0200 +Message-ID: <CABm2gDopoEgMOPWfqH1Jqk4HktodkhWhYZYmqb2edgi9N7+mXA@mail.gmail.com> +From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc> +To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.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] + =?utf-8?q?R=C4=83spuns=3A_Personal_opinion_on_the_f?= + =?utf-8?q?ee_market_from_a_worried_local_trader?= +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, 31 Jul 2015 01:29:24 -0000 + +I'm re-reading and I have many spelling errors, sorry. + +On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote: +> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com> wrote: +>> On 7/30/2015 11:14 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote: +>>> The blocksize limit (your "production quota") is necessary for +>>> decentralization, not for having a functioning fee market. +>> +>>> If we can agree that hitting the limit will JUST cause higher fees and +>>> not bitcoin to fail, puppies to die or the sky to turn purple I think +>>> that's a great step forward in this debate. +>> +>> It's interesting how people see things differently. I think your first +>> statement above represents a great step forward in the debate. Unlike +>> Adam Back, you state that a block size limit is not necessary to create +>> a functioning fee market. +> +> Yes, Adam Back and I some times see things differently, and that's fine. +> Many times, we realize later that we're saying the same thing with +> different words and we're just discussing about terminology. That's +> not an exclusive problem we have, it's a universal communication +> problem. That's why math (which is nothing but a language) was +> invented: to never discuss about terminology, to force any used +> concept to be defined beforehand. +> Sorry for the distraction, but I think this is one of those times. +> Whether "hitting the limit" is "necessary" (I bet he never said +> "strictly necessary") or just "helpful" is not very relevant. I think +> Adam and I agree that hitting the limit wouldn't be bad, but actually +> good for an young and immature market like bitcoin fees. +> Apart from the dubious time-preference premium (dubious because in +> most cases is just wallet's defaults and not users in a hurry), +> transactions are basically free if you are willing to wait (and +> apparently not that much). +> +> If I was a miner and you want me to include your transaction for free, +> you're asking me to give you money, which I would prefer to do +> directly if you are a friend or a non-profit organization that I like +> or whatever rather than giving you money through bitcoin fee +> discounts. +> By including your transaction, I'm increasing the probability of my +> mined block being orphaned and you're not willing to give me even a +> single satoshi in exchange. +> Today, in practice, one satoshi fee and no fee at all are treated +> exactly the same by most (maybe all?) miners, which if you ask me, I +> find very ~~unfair~~ economically absurd. +> +> Are all miners just stupid? +> Not necessarily, they just don't care about fees or transactions at all. +> Who is to blame? Certainly not the value chosen for the block size +> limit, it's clearly the subsidy's fault: subsidy is all miners care +> about (by the way, that's also the illness behind the SPV-mining +> symptom). I am very worried about excessive mining subsidies (if you +> knew how worried the freicoin community was [and still is] about this +> problem, even if freicoin probably has one of the lowest mining +> subsidies out there [currently and perpetually annual 5% of the +> monetary base]...). +> And I think that "hitting the limit" is not a catastrophe at all, but +> rather an opportunity to motivate miners to start caring more about +> transactions and fees (in proportion to what they care about). +> And if the limit is increased later and fees fall again, that's fine, +> because miners' will already be more prepared for the next time we +> "hit the limit". +> Anyway, maybe that hope is irrelevant, but what I'm convinced about is +> that rising non-fast-confirmation mining fees above zero is not a bad +> thing. +> +>> As to your second statement, unfortunately for immediate harmonious +>> relations, I was merely separating out the elevated fee market concern, +>> not at all saying it is the only or even the biggest concern with +>> limited capacity. Alan Reiner, Ryan X. Charles and others have +>> eloquently explained how restrictive a 1MB limit is, even with "layer 2"= +. +> +> To be honest, I've only followed those were assuming the worse case +> for optimization: bitcoin global monetary monopoly. +> If I remember correctly, they were aiming for something around 170 MB, +> but in any case, any value for the constant is completely arbitrary to +> me at this point, including 1 MB. I'm deeply offended when I feel +> included in the "1MBers group" because I don't feel like that at all. +> To be honest, I have no idea what the correct value should be, all I +> know it's a trade-off in a monotonic function: +> +> f(blocksize) =3D decentralization +> +>> What's missing from the decentralization dialog is a quantitative +>> measure of decentralization. +> +> You are completely right: there's no defined measurable unit for +> "decentralization" ("p2pness", whatever bitcoin has that wasn't +> possible before pow-based distributed consensus). +> And I'm afraid we will never have such a measurable unit. Maybe the +> best definition of the property we're trying to capture is just "the +> opposite of centralization", assuming centralization is easier to +> define. +> The best we have now are pool percentages, number of nodes, +> subsidy/fee ratio (as said, this influences things like SPV mining) +> How all that gets to...? +> +> g(many unrelated matrics) =3D centralization +> +> I don't really think anybody knows, but no matter what your +> interpretation of some Japanese-named dude on the internet's words +> (aka bitcoin sacred history) are, if you think 3 validating nodes is +> enough for a "p2p" monetary network. +> It is very possible that decentralization(blocksize) =3D +> decentralization(blocksize+1) for many values of blocksize, but I +> think the burden of the proof that decentralization(current_blocksize) +> ~=3D decentralization(current_blocksize+1) is on those who propose +> ++current_blocksize. +> But I think ANY metric for centralization would be welcomed right now. +> In fact, it doesn't need to be a function of blocksize, it can be a +> function of maxBlockSigops or maybe even maxBlockInputs or +> maxBlockOuputs. +> But if we don't want to have any consensus limit to centralization +> bitcoin has already fail (and doesn't need expensive proof of work). +> +>> Why not slam users with higher fees now, if we accept that they may be +>> necessary someday? For the same reasons you don't ask a child, age 5, to +>> work in a factory. +> +> It is a certainty that fees will be necessary someday: bitcoin's +> seigniorage is limited to 21 M to subsidize mining, and we know that +> won't last forever. Expensive proof of work (that centralized systems +> lack) must be paid for somehow. +> Who's child am I asking to work in a factory? I feel I'm missing +> something there. + |