Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD618409 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:49:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f178.google.com (mail-io0-f178.google.com [209.85.223.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE6341CB for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:49:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iods203 with SMTP id s203so14938537iod.0 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:49:17 -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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=/9VsyJFCZ7Dbi1oxCiXhbVkzv2fgBgHhDVUggda2usM=; b=ItukszjeK4R7Bl6J0LdMs4Aa33jdcm3HGkNPHElENIUm9tqqf2AR0pyVgpXinl3HFU +qg+XybZ7jbzRgRZQApGOActL1UnHTgk2M+NuI6iOJIQgejdztHt1M1CSSEJUhFXBVPl wwLPJyjbmJK7x+Q2s+xCWiOvSwxC2si0gZi/oh5Z30vqgCkehSLOozO+9MxHuHeHpNc4 Nxwv/rp8phdPGTKk0HYkrvI1B9BKc1yHTpy4H8524o1kveFLKC9RQyqrguaWo8PwAmNw xECsWvkeoNnglcTTnHPwKjLF19ntQPWluCZE4pute+oSHTdYyxTs9U9ZHB4FDxfwwO9n T+0w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlIu++GCz4fyECkRLH2QzSutzh62ihTULkEkqwuRAd6v4ZWnQ734qxKnca1aib5KPA95tNA X-Received: by 10.107.35.138 with SMTP id j132mr32935604ioj.159.1439318957228; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:49:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.158.140 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:48:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [24.4.96.213] In-Reply-To: References: <8181630.GdAj0CPZYc@coldstorage> From: Mark Friedenbach Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:48:57 -0700 Message-ID: To: Michael Naber Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140f4e62a2c69051d0d8f1e X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:49:18 -0000 --001a1140f4e62a2c69051d0d8f1e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Michael, why does it matter that every node in the world process and validate your morning coffee transaction? Why does it matter to anyone except you and the coffee vendor? On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a global consensus > network -- which is a network where all the participating nodes are aware > of and agree upon every transaction. Constraining Bitcoin capacity below > the limits of technology will only push users seeking to participate in a > global consensus network to other solutions which have adequate capacity, > such as BitcoinXT or others. Note that lightning / hub and spoke do not > meet requirements for users wishing to participate in global consensus, > because they are not global consensus networks, since all participating > nodes are not aware of all transactions. > > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> >> On Aug 11, 2015 12:14 AM, "Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev" < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> > >> > On Monday 10. August 2015 13.55.03 Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev wr= ote: >> > > Gavin, I interpret the absence of response to these questions as a >> > > sign that everybody agrees that there's no other reason to increase >> > > the consensus block size other than to avoid minimum market fees fro= m >> > > rising (above zero). >> > > Feel free to correct that notion at any time by answering the >> > > questions yourself. >> > > In fact if any other "big block size advocate" thinks there's more >> > > reason I would like to hear their reasons too. >> > >> > See my various emails in the last hour. >> >> I've read them. I have read gavin's blog posts as well, several times. >> I still don't see what else can we fear from not increasing the size >> apart from fees maybe rising and making some problems that need to be >> solved rewardless of the size more visible (like a dumb unbounded mempoo= l >> design). >> >> This discussion is frustrating for everyone. I could also say "This have >> been explained many times" and similar things, but that's not productive= . >> I'm not trying to be obstinate, please, answer what else is to fear or >> admit that all your feas are just potential consequences of rising fees. >> >> With the risk of sounding condescending or aggressive...Really, is not >> that hard to answer questions directly and succinctly. We should all be >> friends with clarity. Only fear, uncertainty and doubt are enemies of >> clarity. But you guys on the "bigger blocks side" don't want to spread f= ud, >> do you? >> Please, prove paranoid people like me wrong on this point, for the good >> of this discussion. I really don't know how else to ask this without >> getting a link to something I have already read as a response. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --001a1140f4e62a2c69051d0d8f1e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Michael, why does it matter that every node in the world p= rocess and validate your morning coffee transaction? Why does it matter to = anyone except you and the coffee vendor?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Michael = Naber via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundati= on.org> wrote:
Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a global consensus = network -- which is a network where all the participating nodes are aware o= f and agree upon every transaction.=C2=A0Constraining Bitcoin capacity belo= w the limits of technology will only push users seeking to participate in a= global consensus network to other solutions which have adequate capacity, = such as BitcoinXT or others. Note that lightning / hub and spoke do not mee= t requirements for users wishing to participate in global consensus, becaus= e they are not global consensus networks, since all participating nodes are= not aware of all transactions.=C2=A0




On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:47 PM, = Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.or= g> wrote:
=


On Aug 11, 2015 12:14 AM, "Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev" <bit= coin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Monday 10. August 2015 13.55.03 Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev wr= ote:
> > Gavin, I interpret the absence of response to these questions as = a
> > sign that everybody agrees that=C2=A0 there's no other reason= to increase
> > the consensus block size other than to avoid minimum market fees = from
> > rising (above zero).
> > Feel free to correct that notion at any time by answering the
> > questions yourself.
> > In fact if any other "big block size advocate" thinks t= here's more
> > reason I would like to hear their reasons too.
>
> See my various emails in the last hour.

I've read them. I have read gavin's blog post= s as well, several times.
I still don't see what else can we fear from not increasing the size ap= art from fees maybe rising and making some problems that need to be solved = rewardless of the size more visible (like a dumb unbounded mempool design).=

This discussion is frustrating for everyone. I could also sa= y "This have been explained many times" and similar things, but t= hat's not productive.
I'm not trying to be obstinate, please, answer what else is to fear or = admit that all your feas are just potential consequences of rising fees.

With the risk of sounding condescending or aggressive...Real= ly, is not that hard to answer questions directly and succinctly. We should= all be friends with clarity. Only fear, uncertainty and doubt are enemies = of clarity. But you guys on the "bigger blocks side" don't wa= nt to spread fud, do you?
Please, prove paranoid people like me wrong on this point, for the good of = this discussion. I really don't know how else to ask this without getti= ng a link to something I have already read as a response.


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



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


--001a1140f4e62a2c69051d0d8f1e--