Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.149.75 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.149.75; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail149075.authsmtp.net; 
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:13:34 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Message-ID: <20140225171334.GA30819@savin>
References: <20140225044116.GA28050@savin>
	<f35865264f37315d580a30dc49789a5a.squirrel@fulvetta.riseup.net>
	<CANEZrP1wB9zpnD+DOnmCNycEGB+nZMt8gQrjpn5V92MMkausaA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140225144922.GA25549@savin>
	<CANEZrP0pDjHr3v2w_zKnME+6GjVdvV5HYjrLH7xthbNdBniK4g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0pDjHr3v2w_zKnME+6GjVdvV5HYjrLH7xthbNdBniK4g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fee drop
Precedence: list


--VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:25:58PM +0530, Mike Hearn wrote:

Well, I've done my responsible disclosure, and I've got better things to
do than argue with wishful thinking.

> There are two possibilities.
>=20
> One is that the value of transactions with the new lower fee is outweighed
> by increased orphan costs and miners refuse to include them en-masse.
> Wallet authors lose the staring match and go back to setting higher fees
> until such a time as block propagation is optimised and the orphan costs =
go
> down. Nodes that are encountering memory pressure can increase their min
> relay fee locally until their usage fits inside their resources. It's
> annoying to do this by hand but by no means infeasible.
>=20
> The other is that the total value of transactions even with the lower fee
> is not outweighed by orphan costs. The value of a transaction is higher
> than its simple monetary value - the fact that Bitcoin is useful, growing
> and considered cheap also has a value which is impossible to calculate, b=
ut
> we know it's there (because Bitcoin does not exist in a vacuum and has
> competitors). In this case miners stop including lots of useful
> transactions that represent desired economic activity and are put under
> pressure by the community to change their policies. If all miners do this
> and making small blocks is considered errant behaviour, then we're back to
> the same situation we're in today.
>=20
> The possibility you're worried about - that someone does a DoS attack by
> flooding the network with small transactions - is only an issue in the
> first situation, and it is by no means the easiest or cheapest way to DoS
> Bitcoin. We all want to see more DoS resistance but basically any change =
to
> Bitcoin can be objected to on anti-DoS grounds at the moment, and this wi=
ll
> remain the case until someone steps up to spend significant time on
> resource scheduling and code audits.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000445db8e568846d542c86ab395137b32b2a05577afcc7c6a3

--VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
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==
=ztKd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J--