Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5C9D26C for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:24:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f169.google.com (mail-ig0-f169.google.com [209.85.213.169]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC5BB1BC for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:24:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igbpg9 with SMTP id pg9so70118350igb.0 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 07:24:19 -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=6DCqTZdkXyZ5cJQMUK+FsHWkOGYb5nhAcYFR10ro1y8=; b=tHItmpNtSwkJm9kYZyNLirgB69XgYAYgFOTpHmTyACdnAfemyjZxfsUCyQlVF17qL+ ejc1vlh9sLgy6lLMpjNlGC4xGnCsFW7HMrr2kvNeyS8kqfI0JsGu+rP0ZlJNozyykwRo Hkk/4x4KfBuJvWWXdRC0rm2f9CCWs1Tf7n7dSCtdYRuT4qWxiVV3ROamIT2qRzA9GoKG XQbAzp0hN4NzIJlMBb6rltEAepmaxfEi0F7tXahUkjfosX1bZynvfv0b4SHHmx9emJ1g XvGPFN+y0UBZ5sEnku72KPLltDHw5VOdOulKHXZ7IYuxO8+NtMXiNhU7ZUF3isF0RB/1 XQdA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.78.161 with SMTP id c1mr11631805igx.35.1439216658685; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 07:24:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.241.137 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 07:24:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:24:18 -0400 Message-ID: From: Alex Morcos To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0111e07ab22a15051cf5bdb2 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 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:24:20 -0000 --089e0111e07ab22a15051cf5bdb2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gavin, They are not analogous. Increasing performance and making other changes that will help allow scaling can be done while at small scale or large scale. Dealing with full blocks and the resultant feedback effects is something that can only be done when blocks are full. It's just too complicated a problem to solve without seeing the effects first hand, and unlike the block size/scaling concerns, its binary, you're either in the situation where demands outgrows supply or you aren't. Fee estimation is one example, I tried very hard to make fee estimation work well when blocks started filling up but it was impossible to truly test and in the small sample of full blocks we've gotten since the code went live, many improvements made themselves obvious. Expanding mempools is another issue that doesn't exist at all if supply > demand. Turns out to also be a difficult problem to solve. Nevertheless, I mostly agree that these arguments shouldn't be the reason not to expand block size, I think they are more just an example of how immature all of this technology is, and we should be concentrating on improving it before we're trying to scale it to world acceptance levels. The saddest thing about this whole debate is how fundamental improvements to the science of cryptocurrencies (things like segregated witness and confidential transactions) are just getting lost in the circus debate around trying to cram a few more users into the existing system sooner rather than later. On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote= : > >> >> On Aug 7, 2015 5:55 PM, "Gavin Andresen" wrote= : >> > >> > I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, an= d >> yes, fear of Bad Things Happening as we run up against the 1MB limit is = one >> of the reasons. >> >> What are the other reasons? >> >> > I take the opinion of smart engineers who actually do resource plannin= g >> and have seen what happens when networks run out of capacity very seriou= sly. >> >> When "the network runs out of capacity" (when we hit the limit) do we >> expect anything to happen apart from minimum market fees rising (above >> zero)? >> Obviously any consequences of fees rising are included in this concern. >> > It is frustrating to answer questions that we answered months ago, > especially when I linked to these in response to your recent "increase > advocates say that not increasing the max block size will KILL BITCOIN" > false claim: > http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent > https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32 > > Executive summary: when networks get over-saturated, they become > unreliable. Unreliable is bad. > > Unreliable and expensive is extra bad, and that's where we're headed > without an increase to the max block size. > > RE: the recent thread about "better deal with that type of thing now > rather than later" : exactly the same argument can be made about changes > needed to support a larger block size-- "better to do that now than to do > that later." I don't think either of those arguments are very convincing= . > > > -- > -- > Gavin Andresen > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --089e0111e07ab22a15051cf5bdb2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Gavin,
They are not analogous.

Increasing performance and making other changes that will help allow scal= ing can be done while at small scale or large scale.
Dealing with= full blocks and the resultant feedback effects is something that can only = be done when blocks are full.=C2=A0 It's just too complicated a problem= to solve without seeing the effects first hand, and unlike the block size/= scaling concerns, its binary, you're either in the situation where dema= nds outgrows supply or you aren't. =C2=A0

Fee = estimation is one example, I tried very hard to make fee estimation work we= ll when blocks started filling up but it was impossible to truly test and i= n the small sample of full blocks we've gotten since the code went live= , many improvements made themselves obvious.=C2=A0 Expanding mempools is an= other issue that doesn't exist at all if supply > demand. =C2=A0 Tur= ns out to also be a difficult problem to solve.

Ne= vertheless, I mostly agree that these arguments shouldn't be the reason= not to expand block size, I think they are more just an example of how imm= ature all of this technology is, and we should be concentrating on improvin= g it before we're trying to scale it to world acceptance levels.=C2=A0 = The saddest thing about this whole debate is how fundamental improvements t= o the science of cryptocurrencies (things like segregated witness and confi= dential transactions) are just getting lost in the circus debate around try= ing to cram a few more users into the existing system sooner rather than la= ter.


On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Gavin Andres= en via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.= org> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <= jtimon@jtimon.cc&= gt; wrote:

On Aug 7, 2015 5:55 PM, "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wr= ote:
>
> I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, an= d yes, fear of Bad Things Happening as we run up against the 1MB limit is o= ne of the reasons.

What are the other reasons?

> I take the opinion of smart engineers who actually do r= esource planning and have seen what happens when networks run out of capaci= ty very seriously.

When "the network runs out of capacity" (wh= en we hit the limit) do we expect anything to happen apart from minimum mar= ket fees rising (above zero)?
Obviously any consequences of fees rising are included in this concern.

It is frustrating to answer questions that w= e answered months ago, especially when I linked to these in response to you= r recent "increase advocates say that not increasing the max block siz= e will KILL BITCOIN" false claim:
=C2= =A0=C2=A0http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasin= g-the-max-block-size-is-urgent
=C2=A0= =C2=A0https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e3= 2

= Executive summary: when networks get over-saturated, they become unreliable= .=C2=A0 Unreliable is bad.

Unreliable and expensive is extra bad, and that's = where we're headed without an increase to the max block size.

RE: the recent = thread about "better deal with that type of thing now rather than late= r" : =C2=A0exactly the same argument can be made about changes needed = to support a larger block size-- "better to do that now than to do tha= t later." =C2=A0I don't think either of those arguments are very c= onvincing.


--
--
Gavin Andresen


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--089e0111e07ab22a15051cf5bdb2--