Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B7B07D for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 03:07:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com (mail-pa0-f54.google.com [209.85.220.54]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F82D1A0 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 03:07:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by padck2 with SMTP id ck2so23878315pad.0 for ; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 20:07:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=/hWdtasE1aYNrlqHLn+Dk094W4n8sikJuzPXgVoRrA4=; b=MYKzaxCA7uK/VeUy2h/buNvbgKVn8IinZJ2got8mvi/F30aYNdny/brJo7UsZV1mGZ Rw5mJ+z0HAqOXirbwRp4mSKL+Y7bbT+rRMoZAy94MZ2Vo4k/dqJeHViqCqK6JDyF3syk bopvtCEH3mRgrwqjXqyChjOiPZus+UDuExWle7xnT9tpR6WAiXnnXcqnHldWqIiz0VFv 4hdhkSmuv93/vDGkOi197KfFp/p0/OXa1ynF7HCzF8PDZhObfzAqSHK71ovXBMTM5Vsx Pwk3XPbNzjFLtg4zI99LxLJt40JqLA+9ZMoGgAcE+OB8Gah9POmSOvvpcr7Ek3FaNVaC B0dg== X-Received: by 10.67.15.67 with SMTP id fm3mr14546384pad.114.1438744071980; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 20:07:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.107] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com. [76.167.237.202]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id hx7sm843016pbc.84.2015.08.04.20.07.50 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Aug 2015 20:07:51 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6C84C5CD-BF8B-4B0D-9FE8-AE22367895D3"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5 From: Eric Lombrozo In-Reply-To: <5A323AB6-914C-4FF5-9FC2-AB8E02C69F93@phauna.org> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 20:07:48 -0700 Message-Id: <835E3F90-C057-4240-9EB6-D2C7400B662B@gmail.com> References: <5A323AB6-914C-4FF5-9FC2-AB8E02C69F93@phauna.org> To: Owen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) 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 03:07:53 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_6C84C5CD-BF8B-4B0D-9FE8-AE22367895D3 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8F28C036-B8A0-4D41-ABD0-83DC64CF37D8" --Apple-Mail=_8F28C036-B8A0-4D41-ABD0-83DC64CF37D8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Rather than speculating on fake markets, why don=E2=80=99t we use = theory, empirical data, and engineering to fix the damn problems? > On Aug 4, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Owen via bitcoin-dev = wrote: >=20 > Given there is no money at stake in these prediction games, it is no = surprise that the results are implausible. >=20 > 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: > https://blocksizedebate.com/ >=20 > =E2=80=8BThe scicast prediction market is shutdown atm (since early = July?) so those numbers aren't live. But... >=20 > Network hash rate > 3,255.17 PH/s (same block size) > 5,032.64 PH/s (block size increase) >=20 > 4,969.68 PH/s (no replace-by-fee) > 3,132.09 PH/s (replace-by-fee) >=20 > 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 the last doubling, and there's a block reward reduction due = in that period too. (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 just doesn't seem a supportable prediction now) >=20 > That the PH/s rate is higher with bigger blocks is surprising, but = given that site also predicts USD/BTC will be $280 with no change but = $555 with bigger blocks, so I assume that difference is mostly due to = price. Also, 12.5btc 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. >=20 > Daily transaction volume > 168,438.22 tx/day (same block size) > 193,773.08 tx/day (block size increase) >=20 > 192,603.80 tx/day (no replace-by-fee) > 168,406.73 tx/day (replace-by-fee) >=20 > That's only a 15% increase in transaction volume 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 would probably = be enough for the next two years... >=20 > (Predicting 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 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) >=20 > Cheers, > aj >=20 > -- > Anthony Towns > >=20 >=20 > 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 --Apple-Mail=_8F28C036-B8A0-4D41-ABD0-83DC64CF37D8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Rather than speculating on fake markets, why don=E2=80=99t we = use theory, empirical data, and engineering to fix the damn = problems?

On Aug 4, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Owen via = bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

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

On August 4, 2015 10:22:19 AM 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://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  (same = block size)
= 5,032.64 PH/s =  (block size increase)

4,969.68 PH/s  (no = replace-by-fee)
3,132.09 PH/s =  (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 the last doubling, and there's a block reward reduction due in that = period too. (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 just doesn't seem a supportable prediction = now)

That the PH/s rate is higher with bigger = blocks is surprising, but given that site also predicts USD/BTC will be = $280 with no change but $555 with bigger blocks, so I assume that = difference is mostly due to price. Also, 12.5btc 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  (same block = size)
= 193,773.08 tx/day  (block size increase)

= 192,603.80 = tx/day  (no replace-by-fee)
168,406.73 tx/day =  (replace-by-fee)

That's= only a 15% increase in transaction volume 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 would probably = be enough for the next two years...

(Predicting 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 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

-- =
Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>


bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<=
/a>
________________________________= _______________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<= br class=3D"">

= --Apple-Mail=_8F28C036-B8A0-4D41-ABD0-83DC64CF37D8-- --Apple-Mail=_6C84C5CD-BF8B-4B0D-9FE8-AE22367895D3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVwX4EAAoJEJNAI64YFENUXN8P/2VhOB2+biWsMm2y5NDIxIIQ pD8mI/Jus+KLRZgETBAS7tBknz//eak1NkMWOmQDF8CkjFYP6NR6gLow0zwx+5qY eBZBEXvSQNwETTp5eI58QRlyak0sODQ7lSLRx2eOcBRQTukbxz1XJXoSJmaVWmB0 Y9z7Y5s6Y/1aH6BqG6B3rhNzFAcxgrSyyjTapygKAy7yRsWd53ScdWRswjZy9gtF UolCkG4yY5Fnxxe3QR4rIQG9MbhdFxbXYRNWJHgVPXayqdSuzI2gr+lt/p/di6Jz RH7tpjvfx/y5r6bHnAQUtdRqVvPCQyshd0vzbSMvdDNasZhYFr53HAefjfpD+AUL RHBC/a9qNdwoKKln51aNo6zYDqyHOwZq3kKeTsuRBoG6xESu5E6+7Mw5CEWp2p++ 6Wt9ZUg9ahqzMYhIhJ8ezWtHhP+hFHJAszjjJAiBEObFMZ2wMniLHcF7Z6KaKUz/ hBtyPNmpv9c9evuRVWqqV3kNFHsK6mX9FjXHxVXHqgIr7QUxudO2yokBIn8NWe8F /nIHFmlUo1MY6ixscUlRLUQHNCo5PyQlZs7IycCRuOa9u4dduGwKao/C3HZ5WFji SOiqouNMbeSiI8cEUaWYNDS042YSrBcqmTvglEi00qdMOXDpVsT1ypnkbC+txxbY 74aJjwL4bfg0vNN1Nbkm =41NE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_6C84C5CD-BF8B-4B0D-9FE8-AE22367895D3--