Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E4917E for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 06:32:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f52.google.com (mail-pa0-f52.google.com [209.85.220.52]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFC7030 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 06:32:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by padck2 with SMTP id ck2so28013889pad.0 for ; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 23:32:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:content-type; bh=6qF7NpIa4hbeKT+ez6wjPpslNXYc+7cK/4+Oe+FD4MQ=; b=JOsaHl3nNsh5kH3bB7cT6XpDOo8vqKXG4OfslOGLBChg1gKbKbrVZ5rfnej2xpnrM/ mBJa385uqCsnu96wUNNMA33Lgvmj3Dun2nfIiaiXGKunGI7tYY2Hlpy9X6MTQRwW4EJc 4yvsRJbQtpRhEGBKZcznIsvcU0++vOZ5lHXWeC9NjGD1VqyQ9Sv1q5DWPMCSuXRKwBxN 85lzFIT87mxfbgz+CSLIDjB7rb/+knRsnFwcaBYvfOEK8yULQSCXLSvs1XBxH+wb1cQC 2XYP7sxMKLq78z6gXYXXKqey8hs8w5LwH/oCNvkdkfjaJMQP38ifkrVZG6+69PWwHp2L v9DQ== X-Received: by 10.66.230.201 with SMTP id ta9mr16258442pac.95.1438756344599; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 23:32:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.outlook.com (ec2-54-149-197-188.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com. [54.149.197.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id cq5sm1508516pad.11.2015.08.04.23.32.23 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Aug 2015 23:32:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 06:32:23 +0000 (UTC) From: Mashuri Clark To: , Owen , Eric Lombrozo Message-ID: <207C5360C6E6B691.EE5B6328-B96A-4704-9818-D158751E7CAD@mail.outlook.com> In-Reply-To: <835E3F90-C057-4240-9EB6-D2C7400B662B@gmail.com> References: <5A323AB6-914C-4FF5-9FC2-AB8E02C69F93@phauna.org> <835E3F90-C057-4240-9EB6-D2C7400B662B@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_9769_2068777552.1438756343021" X-Mailer: Outlook for iOS and Android 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: Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Eli Dourado on "governance" 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: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 06:32:26 -0000 ------=_Part_9769_2068777552.1438756343021 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Why not speculate on a real market? =C2=A0Peter Sztorc proposed a sidechain= that could be implemented now using Blockstream's method: http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/win-win-blocksize/ -- MC On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 8:08 PM -0700, "Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev" wrote: Rather than speculating on fake markets, why don=E2=80=99t we use theory, e= mpirical data, and engineering to fix the damn problems? On Aug 4, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Owen via bitcoin-dev wrote: Given there is no money at stake in these prediction games, it is no surpri= se that the results are implausible. On August 4, 2015 10:22:19 AM EDT, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote: On 4 August 2015 at 01:22, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev wrote: And the preliminary results of using a prediction market to try to wrestle = with the tough tradeoffs looks roughly correct to me, too:=C2=A0 =C2=A0http= s://blocksizedebate.com/ =E2=80=8BThe scicast prediction market is shutdown atm (since early July?) = so those numbers aren't live. But... Network hash rate 3,255.17 PH/s =C2=A0(same block size) 5,032.64 PH/s =C2=A0(block size incr= ease) 4,969.68 PH/s =C2=A0(no replace-by-fee) 3,132.09 PH/s =C2=A0(replace-by-fee) Those numbers seem completely implausible: that's ~2.9-3.6 doublings of the= current hashrate (< 400PH/s) in 17 months, when it's taken 12 months for t= he last doubling, and there's a block reward reduction due in that period t= oo. (That might've been a reasonable prediction sometime in the past year, = when doublings were slowing from once every ~45 days to once a year; it jus= t doesn't seem a supportable prediction now) That the PH/s rate is higher with bigger blocks is surprising, but given th= at site also predicts USD/BTC will be $280 with no change but $555 with big= ger blocks, so I assume that difference is mostly due to price. Also, 12.5b= tc at $555 each is about 23 btc at $300 each, so if that price increase is = realistic, it would compensate for almost all of the block reward reduction= . Daily transaction volume 168,438.22 tx/day =C2=A0(same block size) 193,773.= 08 tx/day =C2=A0(block size increase) 192,603.80 tx/day =C2=A0(no replace-by-fee) 168,406.73 tx/day =C2=A0(repla= ce-by-fee) That's only a 15% increase in transaction volume due to the block size incr= ease; I would have expected more? 168k-194k tx/day is also only a 30%-50% i= ncrease in transaction volume from 130k tx/day currently. If that's really = the case, then a 1.5MB-2MB max block size would probably be enough for the = next two years... (Predicting that the node count will drop from ~5000 to ~1200 due to increa= sing block sizes seems quite an indictment as far as centralisation risks g= o; but given I'm not that convinced by the other predictions, I'm not sure = I want to give that much weight to that one either) Cheers,aj --=20 Anthony Towns 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 ------=_Part_9769_2068777552.1438756343021 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Why not speculate on a real market?  Pet= er Sztorc proposed a sidechain that could be implemented now using Blockstr= eam's method:

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/win= -win-blocksize/



--
MC




On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 8:08 PM -0700, "Eric= Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.lin= uxfoundation.org> wrote:

R= ather than speculating on fake markets, why don=E2=80=99t we use theory, em= pirical data, and engineering to fix the damn problems?

On A= ug 4, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Owen via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundatio= n.org> wrote:

Given there is no money at stake in these predicti= on games, it is no surprise that the results are implausible.

On August 4, 2015 10:22:19 A= M EDT, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org= > wrote:
On 4 = August 2015 at 01:22, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin= -dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
=
And the preliminary results of = using a prediction market to try to wrestle with the tough tradeoffs looks = roughly correct to me, too:
   https://blocksized= ebate.com/

=E2=80=8BThe scicast prediction market is shutdown atm (since early Ju= ly?) so those numbers aren't live. But...

Network hash rat= e
3,255.17 PH/s  (same blo= ck size)
5,032.64 PH/s  (block size incre= ase)

4,969.68 PH/s  (no replace-by-fee)
3= ,132.09 PH/s  (replace-by-fee)

Those numbers see= m completely implausible: that's ~2.9-3.6 doublings of the current hashrate= (< 400PH/s) in 17 months, when it's taken 12 months for the last doubli= ng, and there's a block reward reduction due in that period too. (That migh= t've been a reasonable prediction sometime in the past year, when doublings= were slowing from once every ~45 days to once a year; it just doesn't seem= a supportable prediction now)

That the PH/s rate i= s higher with bigger blocks is surprising, but given that site also predict= s USD/BTC will be $280 with no change but $555 with bigger blocks, so I ass= ume that difference is mostly due to price. Also, 12.5btc at $555 each is a= bout 23 btc at $300 each, so if that price increase is realistic, it would = compensate for almost all of the block reward reduction.

Dai= ly transaction volume
168,438.22 tx/day  (same block size)
193,773.08 tx/day  (= block size increase)

192,603.80 tx/day &nb= sp;(no replace-by-fee)
168,406.73 tx/day  (= replace-by-fee)
<= span style=3D"font-family:monospace" class=3D"">
That's only a 15% increase in transaction v= olume due to the block size increase; I would have expected more? 168k-194k= tx/day is also only a 30%-50% increase in transaction volume from 130k tx/= day currently. If that's really the case, then a 1.5MB-2MB max block size w= ould probably be enough for the next two years...

=
(Predictin= g that the node count will drop from ~5000 to ~1200 due to increasing block= sizes seems quite an indictment as far as centralisation risks go; but giv= en I'm not that convinced by the other predictions, I'm not sure I want to = give that much weight to that one either)

<= /div>
Cheer= s,
aj

-- <= br class=3D"" />
Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>


bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
=
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
____________________________________= ___________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@l= ists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.= org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
<= br class=3D"" />
------=_Part_9769_2068777552.1438756343021--