Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
	designates 209.85.218.48 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.218.48; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
	helo=mail-oi0-f48.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <554BBDA2.7040508@gmail.com>
References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me>
	<CANEZrP3wGWHdz+ut6pvke5TJJsc1rTFt8sn2KziX35oL5LAsyg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDpDvk2VsQ+mJ-BoeBKmvu9jBXNujZEFKuCStRNjFL6VOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP2zAGCCBhNa4=9yw+A_Dn5o4SQXoPTE_qcJzZ1dFuF2tw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDqd6iHRUDKZWWTudcC1QkYa+rCuHjz7pMC2K1Db8wpgfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP1CU0kB0vXeXUX1L8byaT-Zf2xg+3N+GeNthi_i6bn1qw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T2Nxvr4fqREMw3_LXftzsxrUAR1+9sVMa8_EpTnH1nN1Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<554BA032.4040405@bluematt.me>
	<CANEZrP3yM9wsSPNgpOsXDk-DjUy5PW2XuRTvK2AyCNbVJ5hZHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADJgMzti7ROH90APiwg4NOAT5+Av=4i295b8VN0sbSLr4+WWRw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP39jWHLF02z-81Z4+9X1vH5+hMuS=-3ED81=Q1o9U=DKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<554BBDA2.7040508@gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 15:54:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0NcxOHkrtW2=-JgfsXQJkCO8Ym7icBwMx_2RsaWcPBnTw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d0ddce3ec7905158347ca
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase
Precedence: list

--089e013d0ddce3ec7905158347ca
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com> wrote:

>  (1) Blocks are essentially nearing "full" now.  And by "full" he means
> that the reliability of the network (from the average user perspective) is
> about to be impacted in a very negative way
>

Er, to be economically precise, "full" just means fees are no longer zero.
Bitcoin behaves as it always has.  It is no longer basically free to dump
spam into the blockchain, as it is today.

In the short term, blocks are bursty, with some on 1 minute intervals, some
with 60 minute intervals.  This does not change with larger blocks.


> (2) Leveraging fee pressure at 1MB to solve the problem is actually really
> a bad idea.  It's really bad while Bitcoin is still growing, and relying on
> fee pressure at 1 MB severely impacts attractiveness and adoption potential
> of Bitcoin (due to high fees and unreliability).  But more importantly, it
> ignores the fact that for a 7 tps is pathetic for a global transaction
> system.  It is a couple orders of magnitude too low for any meaningful
> commercial activity to occur.  If we continue with a cap of 7 tps forever,
> Bitcoin *will* fail.  Or at best, it will fail to be useful for the vast
> majority of the world (which probably leads to failure).  We shouldn't be
> talking about fee pressure until we hit 700 tps, which is probably still
> too low.
>
 [...]

1) Agree that 7 tps is too low

2) Where do you want to go?  Should bitcoin scale up to handle all the
world's coffees?

This is hugely unrealistic.  700 tps is 100MB blocks, 14.4 GB/day -- just
for a single feed.  If you include relaying to multiple nodes, plus serving
500 million SPV clients en grosse, who has the capacity to run such a
node?  By the time we get to fee pressure, in your scenario, our network
node count is tiny and highly centralized.

3) In RE "fee pressure" -- Do you see the moral hazard to a software-run
system?  It is an intentional, human decision to flood the market with
supply, thereby altering the economics, forcing fees to remain low in the
hopes of achieving adoption.  I'm pro-bitcoin and obviously want to see
bitcoin adoption - but I don't want to sacrifice every decentralized
principle and become a central banker in order to get there.

-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/

--089e013d0ddce3ec7905158347ca
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T=
hu, May 7, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Alan Reiner <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:etotheipi@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">etotheipi@gmail.com</a>&gt;</sp=
an> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
 =20
   =20
 =20
  <div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" text=3D"#000000">
    (1) Blocks are essentially nearing &quot;full&quot; now.=C2=A0 And by &=
quot;full&quot; he
    means that the reliability of the network (from the average user
    perspective) is about to be impacted in a very negative way<br></div></=
blockquote><div><br></div><div>Er, to be economically precise, &quot;full&q=
uot; just means fees are no longer zero.=C2=A0 Bitcoin behaves as it always=
 has.=C2=A0 It is no longer basically free to dump spam into the blockchain=
, as it is today.<br><br>In the short term, blocks are bursty, with some on=
 1 minute intervals, some with 60 minute intervals.=C2=A0 This does not cha=
nge with larger blocks.<br><br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-=
left:1ex"><div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" text=3D"#000000">
   =20
    (2) Leveraging fee pressure at 1MB to solve the problem is actually
    really a bad idea.=C2=A0 It&#39;s really bad while Bitcoin is still gro=
wing,
    and relying on fee pressure at 1 MB severely impacts attractiveness
    and adoption potential of Bitcoin (due to high fees and
    unreliability).=C2=A0 But more importantly, it ignores the fact that fo=
r
    a 7 tps is pathetic for a global transaction system.=C2=A0 It is a coup=
le
    orders of magnitude too low for any meaningful commercial activity
    to occur.=C2=A0 If we continue with a cap of 7 tps forever, Bitcoin <b>=
will</b>
    fail.=C2=A0 Or at best, it will fail to be useful for the vast majority
    of the world (which probably leads to failure).=C2=A0 We shouldn&#39;t =
be
    talking about fee pressure until we hit 700 tps, which is probably
    still too low.=C2=A0 <br></div></blockquote><div>=C2=A0[...]<br><br></d=
iv><div>1) Agree that 7 tps is too low<br><br></div><div>2) Where do you wa=
nt to go?=C2=A0 Should bitcoin scale up to handle all the world&#39;s coffe=
es?=C2=A0 <br></div><div><br></div><div>This is hugely unrealistic.=C2=A0 7=
00 tps is 100MB blocks, 14.4 GB/day -- just for a single feed.=C2=A0 If you=
 include relaying to multiple nodes, plus serving 500 million SPV clients e=
n grosse, who has the capacity to run such a node?=C2=A0 By the time we get=
 to fee pressure, in your scenario, our network node count is tiny and high=
ly centralized.<br><br></div>3) In RE &quot;fee pressure&quot; -- Do you se=
e the moral hazard to a software-run system?=C2=A0 It is an intentional, hu=
man decision to flood the market with supply, thereby altering the economic=
s, forcing fees to remain low in the hopes of achieving adoption.=C2=A0 I&#=
39;m pro-bitcoin and obviously want to see bitcoin adoption - but I don&#39=
;t want to sacrifice every decentralized principle and become a central ban=
ker in order to get there.<br><div></div></div><br>-- <br><div class=3D"gma=
il_signature">Jeff Garzik<br>Bitcoin core developer and open source evangel=
ist<br>BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"https://bitpay.com/" tar=
get=3D"_blank">https://bitpay.com/</a></div>
</div></div>

--089e013d0ddce3ec7905158347ca--