Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE4D7414 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:52:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lb0-f178.google.com (mail-lb0-f178.google.com [209.85.217.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B8551AE for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:52:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lbbyj8 with SMTP id yj8so47791818lbb.0 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:52:57 -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=0ZkjFs11S0nsHlDX97/N42PKx3w1tOv8Fk2W7P3CeK4=; b=HLHaQIHQfwhsAE+u9DY516byoZxqQYjKJR3AU2OLMPPDZ/rMD2jkhDKqfxH5PiU22J PDUOYF3MOlcTqhDDArKc0+sgu8Z6KVFCcXM18LOULKT7WK5EEa+xdRvB55wQq9CSQqZn 8YdcwWV/EbfrmdLLxgjyhH05yWMMixd9ycNVQuoHONdSoS5l5fpxdManCjXqIPlYyo2m eb+8mf3hFcLKD9lj8uiiZPwkGAYt/IqGouQ9YTfFlAUAg7nssQf2Pxglz5yVlqqBuJeD t+Yzb6EDCTgH2T2m3fg+H3CCE3XRznOWmHyUGRBHnbNq53lZbvp6XYrMlzn/W0T95hFF FEtg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.142.196 with SMTP id ry4mr3435391lbb.68.1438354377237; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:52:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.18.166 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:52:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 09:52:56 -0500 Message-ID: From: Bryan Bishop To: Mike Hearn , Bryan Bishop Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0112bf7eb76a9e051c2cf92e 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] Block size following technological growth 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: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:52:59 -0000 --089e0112bf7eb76a9e051c2cf92e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > He is not saying that. Whatever the reasons for centralization are, it >> is obvious that increasing the size won't help. >> > > It's not obvious. Quite possibly bigger blocks == more users == more nodes > and more miners. > Well, even in a centralized scheme you can have more users, more nodes and more miners. Just having more does not mean that the system isn't centralized, for example we can point to many centralized services such as PayPal that have trillions of users. > To repeat: it's not obvious to me at all that everything wrong with > Bitcoin can be solved by shrinking blocks. I don't think that's going to > suddenly make everything magically more decentralised. > Nobody claimed that moving to smaller blocks would "solve everything wrong with Bitcoin". You cannot "destroy Bitcoin through centralization" by adjusting a single > constant in the source code. > Why not? That's exactly the sort of change that would be useful to do so, in tandem with some forms of campaigning. > The motivation is profit, and profits are higher when there are more users > to sell to. This is business 101. > I am confused here; is that idea operating under an assumption (or rule) like "we shouldn't count aggregate transactions as representing multiple other transactions from other users" or something? I have seen this idea in a few places, and it would be useful to get a fix on where it's coming from. Does this belief extend to P2SH and multisig...? - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 --089e0112bf7eb76a9e051c2cf92e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On F= ri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev &= lt;bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
He is not say= ing that. Whatever the reasons for centralization are, it
is obvious that increasing the size won't help.
It's not obvious. Quite possibly bigger blocks =3D= =3D more users =3D=3D more nodes and more miners.

Well, even in a centralized scheme you can h= ave more users, more nodes and more miners. Just having more does not mean = that the system isn't centralized, for example we can point to many cen= tralized services such as PayPal that have trillions of users.
= =C2=A0
To repeat: it's not obvious= to me at all that everything wrong with Bitcoin can be solved by shrinking= blocks. I don't think that's going to suddenly make everything mag= ically more decentralised.
Nobody claimed that moving to smaller blocks would "solve = everything wrong with Bitcoin".

You cannot "destroy Bitcoin through centralization"= ; by adjusting a single constant in the source code.

Why not? That's exactly the sort of c= hange that would be useful to do so, in tandem with some forms of campaigni= ng.
=C2=A0
<= div class=3D"gmail_extra">
The motivation is= profit, and profits are higher when there are more users to sell to. This = is business 101.

I = am confused here; is that idea operating under an assumption (or rule) like= "we shouldn't count aggregate transactions as representing multip= le other transactions from other users" or something? I have seen this= idea in a few places, and it would be useful to get a fix on where it'= s coming from. Does this belief extend to P2SH and multisig...?
<= br>
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507=
--089e0112bf7eb76a9e051c2cf92e--