diff options
| author | Will Madden <will.madden@bridge21inc.com> | 2015-08-21 12:07:56 -0600 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-08-21 18:08:00 +0000 |
| commit | 7b963adcf06e03cb29ee276e196770bfccb593e5 (patch) | |
| tree | 684fd3581bd2a7f74d17ee328a07a0fa25b7e0b3 /fc | |
| parent | 8a574172d8e57822d78e947828af26734bc6385f (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-7b963adcf06e03cb29ee276e196770bfccb593e5.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-7b963adcf06e03cb29ee276e196770bfccb593e5.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Core Devs : can you share your thoughts about all BIPs on this website ?
Diffstat (limited to 'fc')
| -rw-r--r-- | fc/23065633cda68b317cba9555a4992abbb52d61 | 204 |
1 files changed, 204 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/fc/23065633cda68b317cba9555a4992abbb52d61 b/fc/23065633cda68b317cba9555a4992abbb52d61 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ef6ce17b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/fc/23065633cda68b317cba9555a4992abbb52d61 @@ -0,0 +1,204 @@ +Return-Path: <will.madden@bridge21inc.com> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EF3B259 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Fri, 21 Aug 2015 18:08:00 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com (mail-io0-f172.google.com + [209.85.223.172]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B76512C + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Fri, 21 Aug 2015 18:07:59 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by iodb91 with SMTP id b91so89957139iod.1 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:07:58 -0700 (PDT) +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=1e100.net; s=20130820; + h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from + :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references + :to; bh=2E9mCO8biJLDvXIHkJTld67UzFfuYD/5gwj3UiuZnIk=; + b=XFudLE2L+wzUhqae6aRfo22EM3GJSI4g5iPtPH0uowodZRD904YEeiWXvlTYoNZOMh + v/8j70mo4naoXkIjX9w2ZVOkjdMm2/qT8KDyMwxCVIuUOrX0fs5Lwc//2C9oyTYkO6iq + gsLWqqZ7XJ0RbgZrLLQ4zirYgm86tYYjSrj+zU0irC7Th4Oa7L/P99XgQ0j6G8MKDqf9 + RmR2wizlhnB92tsrwbqgJjOaER+jCgUohAMi0rY+0hD4kLnjBoGPJ2opNFiRYB+8q2Cz + 4efChKfzObMBeMkTBx0map0EpzVhYd5luwdhjo6SHWdcSPys4UISb0MrdI6wvBxSbM6V + I/Tw== +X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk7qwnC8x24RqDhrX+jlFjqmbbgCX0UPf0h0fHZH0FDw9HpZpAdzxNG4ACNfkkeBUNW3YS9 +X-Received: by 10.107.36.140 with SMTP id k134mr8122282iok.5.1440180478450; + Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:07:58 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from [192.168.1.86] (c-73-34-122-98.hsd1.co.comcast.net. + [73.34.122.98]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id + u83sm6506791iou.28.2015.08.21.11.07.57 + (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); + Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:07:57 -0700 (PDT) +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 +Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) +From: Will Madden <will.madden@bridge21inc.com> +In-Reply-To: <55D7606F.3050501@olivere.de> +Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:07:56 -0600 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +Message-Id: <ABDE1ED5-F181-4F16-8210-4FAF80DD750C@bridge21inc.com> +References: <CA+1nnrk1EWd7rhwj91p1rqgGVFgOT4UYq=+Nmq41sHJYmy7YYA@mail.gmail.com> + <CAAS2fgR4bsJtC99-fK1L+FsQT7vOfOpz9FOVqvAnqbpkaRJHLQ@mail.gmail.com> + <BE291934-F40A-4163-834C-6B3FFBD7C4E0@petertodd.org> + <CADJgMzucVKgQQtzwBNMcU3Vy=ae+2jMQY=am_xYXcKtyforpUg@mail.gmail.com> + <3B2A58B3-6AF6-4F1C-A6FA-7AEC97F48AD0@petertodd.org> + <CAHcfU-XrSA6p_2AJJ1W6KmatkEZdvh1W4ruA-upq4wPWoaJTNQ@mail.gmail.com> + <CADJgMzuBKauAX_tf4ZCxtErfz9Rq7ri3=8S9ZiKou6CPwP8cQw@mail.gmail.com> + <CAHcfU-U2KHmaDUvtASY5+oHE1OmEzHG8MZcx_ar6uM2oCU5Smw@mail.gmail.com> + <55D7250D.5@olivere.de> + <B9E226E5-D7E7-4DC8-BCA7-64431523F318@bridge21inc.com> + <55D7606F.3050501@olivere.de> +To: Oliver Egginger <bitcoin@olivere.de> +X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) +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@lists.linuxfoundation.org +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Core Devs : can you share your thoughts about all + BIPs on this website ? +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, 21 Aug 2015 18:08:00 -0000 + +I=E2=80=99m replying all just because my point was changed in your = +response. + +> As a protocol Bitcoin could support millions of full nodes. What you +> talking about is the number of shareholders. But these are poorly +> determined by the block size. The number of shareholders is determined +> by many parameter but manly by the decreasing-supply algorithm. Which +> "was chosen because it approximates the rate at which commodities like +> gold are mined". See: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply + + + I am not talking about "shareholders=E2=80=9D who own bitcoin, or the = +supply of bitcoin at all. I=E2=80=99m talking about active users of = +bitcoin. I don=E2=80=99t care if they send 10,000 BTC, or .01 BTC, = +usage is adoption. Putting a 1MB cap on block size caps transaction = +volume, which by definition blocks adoption and use. =20 + +> While the decreasing-supply algorithm of Bitcoin has many advantage = +it's +> very hard to believe that the block chain will ever reach mass = +adoption. +> Even after 6 years, hardly anyone owns Bitcoins. Like Gold Bitcoin is +> distributed in large blocks to a few. Exceptions prove the rule. In = +the +> last 6 years the 1MB limit has been sufficient. I don't think that we +> will hit the 8MB limit in the next 6 years, except for stress tests = +and +> spam. + + +You can think what you like, but I find your position on this specious. = +You don=E2=80=99t know if we will hit that limit in the next 6 years. = +All it takes is one moderately successful application and we could be = +hitting that limit with very little warning. It could be open bazaar, = +or something else. Stating that =E2=80=9Ceven after 6 years, hardly = +anyone owns Bitcoins.=E2=80=9D as a justification that it will stay = +small doesn=E2=80=99t hold water either in terms of common sense or when = +looking at other standards evolving through history. TCP/IP was = +declared as a standard by the US Military in 1982 and became a public = +standard in 1985. Normal people didn=E2=80=99t start using TCP/IP until = +much later, when Mark Andreessen created the Mosaic internet browser, = +the precursor to Netscape. It was released in 1993. Widespread use = +didn=E2=80=99t really kick in until the second half of that decade. The = +reference bitcoin client was released in January 2009. So it=E2=80=99s = +basically 1988 for bitcoin, if we use the internet as a proxy - one way = +to look at it. The telephone even took 50 years to become widespread.=20= + + +> I don't think that a relative tight block size could harm Bitcoin +> middle-term. Only experienced users penetrate the block chain = +directly. +> They know what they are doing and deal with problems. When space for +> transactions starts to become scarce and the fees rise too much, the +> developers have enough time to make a change. It would then also not = +so +> controversial. A matter of a few days or weeks. Especially if all +> necessary preparations have already been taken. + + +This is insane. You actually believe this? Capping the block size at = +1MB doesn=E2=80=99t just cause fees to rise. It caps transactions that = +can be performed. This caps the number of users who can access bitcoin, = +directly cuts demand, which kills the price, which kills the mining, and = +BAM Rome falls. Only experienced users can =E2=80=9Cpenetrate=E2=80=99 = +the block chain directly? Seriously? You download a software = +application, or sign up for a web wallet, buy some bitcoin on an = +exchange or have a friend send you some, and send it. Try bread wallet. = + My mom can do it. She is in her 70=E2=80=99s and couldn=E2=80=99t = +program a VCR 20 years ago. + +I am just going to stop here. I really hope you change the way you are = +looking at bitcoin. This is not what it was meant to be, and if it ever = +becomes this, I=E2=80=99m not going to be interested in it. + +> On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:31 AM, Oliver Egginger <bitcoin@olivere.de> = +wrote: +>=20 +> Am 21.08.2015 um 15:34 schrieb Will Madden: +>> Keeping the block size at 1mb restricts the number of active users of = +bitcoin to around 100,000 people transacting twice a day on blockchain. =20= + +>> BItcoin is a protocol. Protocols are successful because of their = +network effect. Capping the block size freezes bitcoin=E2=80=99s = +network effect, limits users and prevents new users from joining (which = +will cut demand to exchange bitcoin) and also freeze the economic = +incentive to mine, because it will hurt the price. =20 +>=20 +> As a protocol Bitcoin could support millions of full nodes. What you +> talking about is the number of shareholders. But these are poorly +> determined by the block size. The number of shareholders is determined +> by many parameter but manly by the decreasing-supply algorithm. Which +> "was chosen because it approximates the rate at which commodities like +> gold are mined". See: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply +>=20 +> While the decreasing-supply algorithm of Bitcoin has many advantage = +it's +> very hard to believe that the block chain will ever reach mass = +adoption. +> Even after 6 years, hardly anyone owns Bitcoins. Like Gold Bitcoin is +> distributed in large blocks to a few. Exceptions prove the rule. In = +the +> last 6 years the 1MB limit has been sufficient. I don't think that we +> will hit the 8MB limit in the next 6 years, except for stress tests = +and +> spam. +>=20 +>> Freezing bitcoin=E2=80=99s growth for any meaningful length of time = +will +>> threaten its position as the leading cryptocurrency. +>=20 +> I don't think that a relative tight block size could harm Bitcoin +> middle-term. Only experienced users penetrate the block chain = +directly. +> They know what they are doing and deal with problems. When space for +> transactions starts to become scarce and the fees rise too much, the +> developers have enough time to make a change. It would then also not = +so +> controversial. A matter of a few days or weeks. Especially if all +> necessary preparations have already been taken. +>=20 +> But I know that my opinion is very different from other claims. = +However, +> reliable people share some more fatalism as I'm currently find in some +> parts of the the Bitcoin community. Fear is a very bad adviser and can +> make a genius stupid. +>=20 +> - oliver +>=20 + + |