Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Yqjkl-0000Az-E6 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 May 2015 14:59:51 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.220.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.169; envelope-from=etotheipi@gmail.com; helo=mail-qk0-f169.google.com; Received: from mail-qk0-f169.google.com ([209.85.220.169]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Yqjkj-0005eI-U9 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 May 2015 14:59:51 +0000 Received: by qkhg7 with SMTP id g7so49609823qkh.2 for ; Fri, 08 May 2015 07:59:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.41.148 with SMTP id z20mr5289819qgz.40.1431097184545; Fri, 08 May 2015 07:59:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.28] (c-69-143-204-74.hsd1.md.comcast.net. [69.143.204.74]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 93sm3735047qkx.38.2015.05.08.07.59.39 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 08 May 2015 07:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <554CCF56.3000604@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 10:59:34 -0400 From: Alan Reiner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Garzik References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me> <554BA032.4040405@bluematt.me> <554BBDA2.7040508@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070102000903090608040604" X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (etotheipi[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Yqjkj-0005eI-U9 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 14:59:51 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070102000903090608040604 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This isn't about "everyone's coffee". This is about an absolute minimum amount of participation by people who wish to use the network. If our goal is really for bitcoin to really be a global, open transaction network that makes money fluid, then 7tps is already a failure. If even 5% of the world (350M people) was using the network for 1 tx per month (perhaps to open payment channels, or shift money between side chains), we'll be above 100 tps. And that doesn't include all the non-individuals (organizations) that want to use it. The goals of "a global transaction network" and "everyone must be able to run a full node with their $200 dell laptop" are not compatible. We need to accept that a global transaction system cannot be fully/constantly audited by everyone and their mother. The important feature of the network is that it is open and anyone *can* get the history and verify it. But not everyone is required to. Trying to promote a system where the history can be forever handled by a low-end PC is already falling out of reach, even with our miniscule 7 tps. Clinging to that goal needlessly limits the capability for the network to scale to be a useful global payments system On 05/07/2015 03:54 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Alan Reiner > wrote: > > > (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. > --------------070102000903090608040604 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
This isn't about "everyone's coffee".  This is about an absolute minimum amount of participation by people who wish to use the network.   If our goal is really for bitcoin to really be a global, open transaction network that makes money fluid, then 7tps is already a failure.  If even 5% of the world (350M people) was using the network for 1 tx per month (perhaps to open payment channels, or shift money between side chains), we'll be above 100 tps.  And that doesn't include all the non-individuals (organizations) that want to use it.

The goals of "a global transaction network" and "everyone must be able to run a full node with their $200 dell laptop" are not compatible.  We need to accept that a global transaction system cannot be fully/constantly audited by everyone and their mother.  The important feature of the network is that it is open and anyone *can* get the history and verify it.  But not everyone is required to.   Trying to promote a system where the history can be forever handled by a low-end PC is already falling out of reach, even with our miniscule 7 tps.  Clinging to that goal needlessly limits the capability for the network to scale to be a useful global payments system



On 05/07/2015 03:54 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com> wrote:
 
(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.


--------------070102000903090608040604--