Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA446B93 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:19:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wr0-f173.google.com (mail-wr0-f173.google.com [209.85.128.173]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A1E8124 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:19:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr0-f173.google.com with SMTP id w43so55930822wrb.0 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 04:19:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=CS5w6eFd9YtVDoLyUZWxtRSvzfEwm6x6cAzIM/P1Y6o=; b=lHO7E6+6zyLPLmOITcXE+V/zRXeiKs8pC+nthxevWEIFtkl1Y+LQI1jguG8e3q94wW XCV4YHrSh5FGK5A0/EpGQcSH1zNnr+Wz7ls6cuLYEIj5Qv+Gl20IIAYHlsmNyl6LHt9+ sLAUKjqxdeyY0nAW+B8cAAphOYsyvAvC+Tv8S6gUuUBcn+HuXia5YDz2RE3l0sewnmJy FflMQ/dBaRfPeMuEhk0hCQiTJpPNuVoMr2I3kbhk3II8P8CJYwebysA1vQTwi/MGSHC4 ZpvmMYCaecscsnmEhenr+vQrKgCirV05q6So/BbxozYl1Y2PkS7JxEda0JYqWp2C7iJb BqwQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CS5w6eFd9YtVDoLyUZWxtRSvzfEwm6x6cAzIM/P1Y6o=; b=NDwPVK1DcICdrc6Ce24qMSWJuuVgBYJBJ9uLK63ihcUx6XCKdioL1x6mBIW6wb/0hF gmUKtlh3MIwpxVxC8UnaqCM/ynDceMXiI4KAr8blBjkBtSvge2hWIU34Yvq9cMvib6K2 9gavMScDgmsnDy/ZTnM6cjUZK/q7mSggAqdit6aWeeGf6sDspsFQPWosop9+0gBQ6YFw mCjLc1ZKe3JH4L2YdWTPNMrCK/CgR+/hdHN9YSjseDeCpLCkIcJ/nLdoeKNXM1bWQHaP Xy+yTJnFAVs2zhPpRfcQUF8cGfcczDdy708JdrjQ7MxPp1AqLrZS7pSWx/CZN2DgnHzM nGUw== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3fzgzTaSET9svdOoJEN6Iu+tbfVBvNe0xzFTLxVuDq8DySaZy1v8GfzBIcXfqhigI71/c/5CBT6KtilA== X-Received: by 10.28.139.134 with SMTP id n128mr2825038wmd.132.1490872760604; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 04:19:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.55.9 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 04:19:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.55.9 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 04:19:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <42619430.6XQoorDgjR@strawberry> References: <42619430.6XQoorDgjR@strawberry> From: David Vorick Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:19:19 -0400 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Dev , Tom Zander Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11441e4a4d1fbe054bf0dd53 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:19:22 -0000 --001a11441e4a4d1fbe054bf0dd53 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > What we want is a true fee-market where the miner can decide to make a block > smaller to get people to pay more fees, because if we were to go to 16MB > blocks in one go, the cost of the miner would go up, but his reward based on > fees will go down! > A block so big that 100% of the transactions will always be mined in the > next block will just cause a large section of people to no longer feel th= e > need to pay fees. > As such I don=E2=80=99t fear the situation where the block size limit goe= s up a lot > in one go, because it is not in anyone=E2=80=99s interest to make the act= ual block > size follow. There have been attacks demonstrated where a malicious miner with sufficient hashrate can leverage large blocks to exacerbate selfish mining. Adversarial behaviors from miners need to be considered, it's not safe to simply assume that a miner won't have reasons to attack the network. We already know that large empty blocks (rather, blocks with fake transactions) can be leveraged in ways that both damages the network and increases miner profits. In general, fear of other currencies passing Bitcoin is unsubstantiated. Bitcoin has by far the strongest development team, and also is by far the most decentralized. To the best of my knowledge, Bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency out there that is both not-dead and also lacks a strong central leadership. A coin like ethereum may even be able to pass Bitcoin in market cap. But that's okay. Ethereum has very different properties and it's not something I would trust as a tool to provide me with political sovereignty. Ethereum passing Bitcoin in market cap does not mean that it has proved superior to Bitcoin. It could just mean that enterprises are really excited about permissioned blockchains. That's not interesting to me at any market cap. Bitcoin's core value add is and should continue to be decentralization and trustlessness. Nobody is remotely close to competing with Bitcoin on those fronts, and in my mind that's far more important than any of the other mania anyway. --001a11441e4a4d1fbe054bf0dd53 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>=C2=A0What we want is a true f= ee-market where the miner can decide to make a block
> smaller to get people = to pay more fees, because if we were to go to 16MB
> blocks in one go, the cost of the miner would go = up, but his reward based on
&g= t; fees will go down!
> A b= lock so big that 100% of the transactions will always be mined in the
> next block will just cause a l= arge section of people to no longer feel the
> need to pay fees.

> As suc= h I don=E2=80=99t fear the situation where the block size limit goes up a l= ot
> in one go, because it = is not in anyone=E2=80=99s interest to make the actual block
> size follow.

T= here have been attacks demonstrated where a malicious miner with sufficient= hashrate can leverage large blocks to exacerbate selfish mining. Adversari= al behaviors from miners need to be considered, it's not safe to simply= assume that a miner won't have reasons to attack the network. We alrea= dy know that large empty blocks (rather, blocks with fake transactions) can= be leveraged in ways that both damages the network and increases miner pro= fits.

In general, fear of other currencies p= assing Bitcoin is unsubstantiated. Bitcoin has by far the strongest develop= ment team, and also is by far the most decentralized. To the best of my kno= wledge, Bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency out there that is both not-dead = and also lacks a strong central leadership.
<= span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">
<= div dir=3D"auto">= A coin like ethereum may even be able to pass Bitcoin in market cap. But th= at's okay. Ethereum has very different properties and it's not some= thing I would trust as a tool to provide me with political sovereignty. Eth= ereum passing Bitcoin in market cap does not mean that it has proved superi= or to Bitcoin. It could just mean that enterprises are really excited about= permissioned blockchains. That's not interesting to me at any market c= ap.

Bitcoin's core value add is and s= hould continue to be decentralization and trustlessness. Nobody is remotely= close to competing with Bitcoin on those fronts, and in my mind that's= far more important than any of the other mania anyway.
= --001a11441e4a4d1fbe054bf0dd53--