To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <CAPg+sBjOj9eXiDG0F6G54SVKkStF_1HRu2wzGqtFF5X_NAWy4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_Wca+ow4pMzN7SyKjsMdFo0wuUerYYjf5xKs5G_2Q2PzMmA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBg=sn7djO_8H16NDg7S7m7_0eTcrgLVofMWQ2ANz+jw9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_WcbQog_UCV=JPHyqTRxKbaGY7jedtHE_D8jJSe_thMg05w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBhrBUSfPdMjbLthLEFD17zBC3LoWf9LvZsOD1Vp0D78BQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ross Nicoll <jrn@jrn.me.uk>
Message-ID: <558DA56F.3010703@jrn.me.uk>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 20:18:07 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/38.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBhrBUSfPdMjbLthLEFD17zBC3LoWf9LvZsOD1Vp0D78BQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="------------090100020403090408000201"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks
Precedence: list

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090100020403090408000201
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I'd argue that at the point where there's consistently more transactions 
than the network can handle, there are two significant risks. Firstly, 
that people don't care enough to pay the transaction fees required to 
get their transaction prioritised over another's, and secondly that as 
transactions start outright failing (which will happen with enough 
transactions backlogged) the network is considered unreliable, the 
currency illiquid, and there's a virtual "bank rush" to get into a more 
usable currency.

I understand the desire to use current demand to model future, however I 
feel there's a lack of understanding of just how inadequate the main 
chain is as a global clearance network. My go-to example for this is 
CHIPS (US-only, inter-bank only clearance) which already handles 
slightly over 3 transactions per second on average across a year 
(https://www.theclearinghouse.org/~/media/tch/pay%20co/chips/reports%20and%20guides/chips%20volume%20through%20may%202015.pdf?la=en). 
If Bitcoin is to be used across a wider portion of the world's 
population, and/or beyond clearance between financial institutions, it 
needs larger blocks. This is not about handling the several orders of 
magnitude more transactions that would be required to replace credit 
cards or cash, but simply to enabling other technologies to perform that 
scaling.

Also, and I'm aware most on this list do understand the situation better 
than this, I find it immensely frustrating to see people suggesting that 
Greece or other large groups should adopt Bitcoin, while there's clearly 
inadequate support (on chain or off) to do so.

Ross

On 26/06/2015 19:34, Pieter Wuille wrote:
>
> > If you wait until the need to increase block size
>
> It is this sentence I disagree with. Why would there be a need? 
> Bitcoin provides utility at any block size, and potentially more with 
> larger blocks.
>
> But no matter what, I believe the economy will adapt to what is 
> available. And setting a precedent that increasing the size "because 
> of a need" is reasonable is to me essentially the same as saying the 
> size should forever scale to whatever people want.
>
> I believe the most important effect of a limit block size - people 
> deciding not to use (on chain) Bitcoin transactions, is already 
> happening, and it will keep happening at any scale.
>
> Either the resulting market is one which can live with high 
> variability in confirmation times, and blocks will end up being nearly 
> full. Or maybe the current fill level is what is acceptable, and we 
> don't see much growth beyond this, only a change in what it is used for.
>
> -- 
> Pieter
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--------------090100020403090408000201
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    I'd argue that at the point where there's consistently more
    transactions than the network can handle, there are two significant
    risks. Firstly, that people don't care enough to pay the transaction
    fees required to get their transaction prioritised over another's,
    and secondly that as transactions start outright failing (which will
    happen with enough transactions backlogged) the network is
    considered unreliable, the currency illiquid, and there's a virtual
    "bank rush" to get into a more usable currency.<br>
    <br>
    I understand the desire to use current demand to model future,
    however I feel there's a lack of understanding of just how
    inadequate the main chain is as a global clearance network. My go-to
    example for this is CHIPS (US-only, inter-bank only clearance) which
    already handles slightly over 3 transactions per second on average
    across a year
    (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theclearinghouse.org/~/media/tch/pay%20co/chips/reports%20and%20guides/chips%20volume%20through%20may%202015.pdf?la=en">https://www.theclearinghouse.org/~/media/tch/pay%20co/chips/reports%20and%20guides/chips%20volume%20through%20may%202015.pdf?la=en</a>).
    If Bitcoin is to be used across a wider portion of the world's
    population, and/or beyond clearance between financial institutions,
    it needs larger blocks. This is not about handling the several
    orders of magnitude more transactions that would be required to
    replace credit cards or cash, but simply to enabling other
    technologies to perform that scaling.<br>
    <br>
    Also, and I'm aware most on this list do understand the situation
    better than this, I find it immensely frustrating to see people
    suggesting that Greece or other large groups should adopt Bitcoin,
    while there's clearly inadequate support (on chain or off) to do so.<br>
    <br>
    Ross<br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 26/06/2015 19:34, Pieter Wuille
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAPg+sBhrBUSfPdMjbLthLEFD17zBC3LoWf9LvZsOD1Vp0D78BQ@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <p dir="ltr">&gt; If you wait until the need to increase block
        size </p>
      <p dir="ltr">It is this sentence I disagree with. Why would there
        be a need? Bitcoin provides utility at any block size, and
        potentially more with larger blocks.</p>
      <p dir="ltr">But no matter what, I believe the economy will adapt
        to what is available. And setting a precedent that increasing
        the size "because of a need" is reasonable is to me essentially
        the same as saying the size should forever scale to whatever
        people want.</p>
      <p dir="ltr">I believe the most important effect of a limit block
        size - people deciding not to use (on chain) Bitcoin
        transactions, is already happening, and it will keep happening
        at any scale.</p>
      <p dir="ltr">Either the resulting market is one which can live
        with high variability in confirmation times, and blocks will end
        up being nearly full. Or maybe the current fill level is what is
        acceptable, and we don't see much growth beyond this, only a
        change in what it is used for.</p>
      <p dir="ltr">-- <br>
        Pieter<br>
      </p>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------090100020403090408000201--